
Class. 
Book- 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 



Complete Works of 
Abraham Lincoln 



GETTYSBURG EDITION 

This Edition de Luxe is limited to seven 
hundred nwnbered and registered sets. 

Numbe r. * * 





r o. 



Abraham Lincoln 

The Celebrated Chicago Photograph. 

Photogravure from the Original Photograph taken 

about i860 by Hester, of Chicago, Illinois, 

and now in the O. H. Oldroyd Lincoln 

Memorial Collection, Washington, 

D. C. 



Complete Works of 

Abraham Lincoln 



Edited by 

John g.Nicolayw John hay 

R I cH ARD W w AT a so ! en G era ' Intr ° duction * 

h°Z, ?""' an " Special A «^> 

y uther Eminent Persons 



New and barged Edition 



VOLUME III 



New Tori 
Francis D. T andy C oM PANy 



EW 






LIBRARY of CONGRESS 
Two Codes Received 

APR 12 1906 

-Copyright Er.try 




Copyright, l8g4, h 

JOHN G. NICOLAY and JOHN HAY 

Copyright, igoS, b 

FRANCIS D. TANDY 



Abraham Lincoln as a Man 
Inspired of God. 1 

THE statesmen in knee-breeches and powdered 
wigs who signed the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence and framed the Constitution — 
the soldiers in blue-and-buff, top-boots, and epaulets 
who led the armies of the Revolution — were what we 
are wont to describe as gentlemen. They were Eng- 
lish gentlemen. They were not all, nor even gen- 
erally, scions of the British aristocracy; but they came, 
for the most part, of good Anglo-Saxon and Scotch- 
Irish stock. 

The shoe-buckle and the ruffled shirt worked a spell 
peculiarly their own. They carried with them an air 
of polish and authority. Hamilton, though of ob- 
scure birth and small stature, is represented by those 
who knew him to have been dignity and grace per- 
sonified; and old Ben Franklin, even in woollen hose, 
and none too courtier-like, was the delight of the great 
nobles and fine ladies, in whose company he made 
himself as much at home as though he had been born 
a marquis. 

1 Revision of a lecture delivered at Lincoln Union, Auditorium, 
Chicago, February 12, 1895. From " The Compromises of Life," 
copyright 1904 by Fox, DuiHcld & Company. 



vi Abraham Lincoln as a 

When we revert to that epoch the beauty of the 
scene which history unfolds is marred by little that is 
uncouth, by nothing that is grotesque. The long pro- 
cession passes, and we see in each group, in every 
figure, something of heroic proportion. John Adams 
and John Hancock, Joseph Warren and Samuel Ad- 
ams, the Livingstons in New York, the Carrolls in 
Maryland, the Masons, the Randolphs, and the Pen- 
dletons in Virginia, the Rutledges in South Carolina 
— what pride of caste, what elegance of manner, what 
dignity and dominancy of character! And the sol- 
diers! Israel Putnam and Nathanael Greene, Ethan 
Allen and John Stark, Mad Anthony Wayne and 
Light Horse Harry Lee, and Morgan and Marion 
and Sumter, gathered about the immortal Washing- 
ton — Puritan and Cavalier so mixed and blended as 
to be indistinguishable the one from the other — where 
shall we go to seek a more resplendent galaxy of field- 
marshals? Surely not to Blenheim, drinking beakers 
to Marlborough after the famous victory; nor yet to 
the silken marquet of the great Conde on the Rhine, 
bedizened with gold lace and radiant with the flower 
of the nobility of France ! Ah, me ! there were gen- 
tlemen in those days; and they made their influence 
felt upon life and thought long after the echoes of 
Bunker Hill and Yorktown had faded away, long 
after the bell over Independence Hall had ceased to 
ring. 

The first half of the Republic's first half-century of 
existence the public men of America, distinguished 
for many things, were chiefly and almost universally 



Man Inspired of God vii 

distinguished for repose of bearing and sobriety of 
behavior. It was not until the institution of African 
slavery had got mto politics as a vital force that Con- 
gress became a bear-garden, and that our lawmakers 

Efl «"?T WitH the,V ""^.clothe*' 
fell into the loose-fitting habiliments of modern fash^ 
ion and the slovenly jargon of partisan controversy 
The gentlemen who signed the Declaration and 
tramed the Constitution were succeeded by eentle- 
men-much like themselves-but these were succeed- 
ed by a race o party leaders much less decorous and 
much more self-confident; rugged, puissant; deeply 
moved m all that they said and did, and sometimes 
urbulent; so that finally, when the volcano burst 
forth flames that reached the heavens, great human 
bowlders appeared am,d the glare on every side; none 
of them much to speak of according to rules regnant 

ull o/ r" " n . d . Ve '*» J U «: b " vigorous, able men, 
full of their mission and of themselves, and pulling 
for dear life in opposite directions. g 

,jT Steward 3nd Sumner and Ci >™> Corwin 
and Ben Wade, Trumbull and Fessenden, Hale and 
Col amer and Grimes, and Wendell Phillips, and 
Horace Greeley, our latter-day Franklin. There 
were Toombs and Hammond, and Slidell and Wig- 
fall, and the two little giants, Douglas and Stephen!, 
and Yancey and Mason, and Jefferson Davis. With 
hem soft words h no parsn . psi and 

1, tie how many pitchers might be broken by rude 
ones. The issue between them did not require a 
d.agram to explain it. It was so simple a child might 



viii Abraham Lincoln as a 

understand. It read, human slavery against human 
freedom, slave labor against free labor, and involved 
a conflict as inevitable as it was irrepressible. 

Long before the guns of Beauregard opened fire 
upon Fort Sumter, and, fulfilling the programme of 
extremism, "blood was sprinkled in the faces of the 
people," the hustings in America had become a battle- 
ground, and every rood of debatable territory a ring 
for controversial mills, always tumultuous, and some- 
times sanguinary. No sooner had the camp-fires of 
the Revolution — which warmed so many noble hearts 
and lighted so many patriotic lamps — no sooner had 
the camp-fires of the Revolution died out, than there 
began to burn, at first fitfully, then to blaze alarm- 
ingly in every direction, a succession of forest fires, 
baffling the energies and resources of the good and 
brave men who sought to put them out. Mr. Web- 
ster, at once a learned jurist and a prose poet, might 
thunder expositions of the written law, to quiet the 
fears of the slave-owner and to lull the waves of agi- 
tation. Mr. Clay, by his resistless eloquence and 
overmastering personality, might compromise first one 
and then another of the irreconcilable conditions that 
threw themselves across the pathway of conservative 
statesmanship. To no purpose, except to delay the 
fatal hour. 

There were moving to the foreground moral forces 
which would down at no man's bidding. The still, 
small voice of emancipation, stifled for a moment by 
self-interest playing upon the fears of the timid, re- 
covered its breath and broke into a cry for abolition. 



Man Inspired of God ;* 

v. The cry for abolition rose in volume to a roar. Slow- 
ly, step by step, the forces of freedom advanced to 
meet the forces of slavery. Gradually, these mighty 
discordant e ements approached the predestined line 
of battle; the gams for a while seeming to be in 
doubt, but ,„ reality all on one side. There was less 
and less of middle-ground. The middle-men who 
ventured to get in the way were either struck down 
or absorbed by the one party or the other. The Sen- 
ate had ,ts Gettysburg; and many and many a Shiloh 
was fought on the floor of the House. Actual war 
raged , n K ^hc mysterious descent upon Har- 

pers Ferry, hke a fire-bell in the night, might have 
warned al men of the coming conflagration; migh 

auored?. V 1 ^ 3 PWpheC y '"" the I!nes th»t. 

quoted to descnbe the scene, fortold the event— 

" Th blood k " r ' bfaed ' edgeS dn ' P With a silent horr ° r of 
A " d ' DeaV' "^ Wh3teVer '' S asked her - a "™'ers: 
Greek was meeting Greek at last; and the field of 
pol,t,cs became almost as sulphurous and murky as an 
actual field of battle. 

*/? n the 1° iSe 3nd confus; °". ^e clashing of in- 
tellects hke sabres bright, and the booming of the big 
oratoncal guns of the North and the South, now 
defimtely arrayed, there came one day into the North- 
ern camp one of the oddest figures imaginable; the 
figure of a man who, in spite of an appearance some- 
what at outs with Hogarth's line of beauty, wore a 
senous aspect, if not an air of command, and, pans- 



x Abraham Lincoln as a 

ing to utter a single sentence that might be heard 
above the din, passed on and for a moment disap- 
peared. The sentence was pregnant with meaning. 
The man bore a commission from God on high ! He 
said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand. 
I believe this Government cannot endure permanently 
half free and half slave. I do not expect the Union 
to be dissolved ; I do not expect the house to fall ; but 
I do expect it will cease to be divided." He was Ab- 
raham Lincoln. 

How shall I describe him to you ? Shall I speak of 
him as I first saw him immediately on his arrival in 
the national capital, the chosen President of the 
United States, his appearance quite as strange as the 
story of his life, which was then but half known and 
half told, or shall I use the words of another and 
more graphic word-painter? 

In January, 1861, Colonel A. K. McClure, of 
Pennsylvania, journeyed to Springfield, 111., to meet 
and confer with the man he had done so much to elect, 
but whom he had never personally known. "I went 
directly from the depot to Lincoln's house," says 
Colonel McClure, "and rang the bell, which was an- 
swered by Lincoln himself opening the door. I doubt 
whether I wholly concealed my disappointment at 
meeting him. Tall, gaunt, ungainly, ill-clad, with a 
homeliness of manner that was unique in itself, I 
confess that my heart sank within me as I remembered 
that this was the man chosen by a great nation to 
become its ruler in the gravest period of its history. 
I remember his dress as if it were but yesterday — 



Man Inspired of God xi 

snuff-colored and slouchy pantaloons; open black vest, 
held by a few brass buttons; straight or evening dress- 
coat, with tightly fitting sleeves to exaggerate his long, 
bony arms, all supplemented by an awkwardness that 
was uncommon among men of intelligence. Such 
was the picture I met in the person of Abraham Lin- 
coln. We sat down in his plainly furnished parlor, 
and were uninterrupted during the nearly four hours 
I remained with him, and, little by little, as his ear- 
nestness, sincerity, and candor were developed in con- 
versation, I forgot all the grotesque qualities which 
so confounded me when I first greeted him. Before 
half an hour had passed I learned not only to respect, 
but, indeed, to reverence the man." 

A graphic portrait, truly, and not unlike. I recall 
him, two months later, a little less uncouth, a little 
better dressed, but in singularity and in angularity 
much the same. All the world now takes an interest 
in every detail that concerned him, or that relates to 
the weird tragedy of his life and death. 

And who was this peculiar being, destined in his 
mother's arms — for cradle he had none — -so pro- 
foundly to affect the future of human-kind? He has 
told us himself, in words so simple and unaffected, so 
idiomatic and direct, that we can neither misread 
them, nor improve upon them. Answering one who, 
in 1859, had asked him for some biographic particu- 
lars, Abraham Lincoln wrote: 

" I was born February 12, 1809, in Hardin Coun- 
ty, ^Kentucky. My parents were both born in Vir- 
ginia, of undistinguished families — second families, 



xii Abraham Lincoln as a 

perhaps I should say. My mother, who died in my 
tenth year, was of a family of the name of Hanks. 
. . . My paternal grandfather, Abraham Lin- 
coln, emigrated from Rockingham County, Va., to 
Kentucky about 178 1 or 1782, where, a year or two 
later, he was killed by the Indians, not in battle, but 
by stealth, when he was laboring to open a farm in 
the forest. 

" My father (Thomas Lincoln) at the death of 
his father was but six years of age. By the early 
death of his father, and the very narrow circumstances 
of his mother, he was, even in childhood, a wandering, 
laboring boy, and grew up literally without educa- 
tion. He never did more in the way of writing than 
bunglingly to write his own name. . . . He re- 
moved from Kentucky to what is now Spencer Coun- 
ty, Indiana, in my eighth year. ... It was a 
wild region, with many bears and other animals still 
in the woods. . . . There were some schools, 
so-called, but no qualification was ever required of a 
teacher beyond ' readin', writin', and cipherin' to the 
rule of three. 1 If a straggler supposed to understand 
Latin happened to sojourn in the neighborhood he 
was looked upon as a wizard. . . . Of course, 
when I came of age I did not know much. Still, 
somehow, I could read, write, and cipher to the rule 
of three. But that was all. . . . The little ad- 
vance I now have upon this store of education I have 
picked up from time to time under the pressure of 
necessity. 

" I was raised to farm work . . . till I was 
twenty-two. At twenty-one I came to Illinois, Ma- 
con County. Then I got to New Salem . . . 
where I remained a year as a sort of clerk in a store. 
Then came the Black Hawk War; and I was elected 
captain of a volunteer company, a success that gave 
me more pleasure than any I have had since. I went 



Man Inspired of God xiii 

the campaign, was elated, ran for the Legislature the 
same year (1832), and was beaten — the only time I 
ever have been beaten by the people. The next, and 
three succeeding biennial elections, I was elected to 
the Legislature. I was not a candidate afterward. 
During the legislative period I had studied law and 
removed to Springfield to practise it. In 1846 I was 
elected to the lower house of Congress. Was not a 
candidate for re-election. From 1849 to I ^54, in- 
clusive, practised law more assiduously than ever be- 
fore. Always a Whig in politics, and generally on 
the Whig electoral tickets, making active canvasses. 
I was losing interest in politics when the repeal of the 
Missouri Compromise aroused me again. 

" If any personal description of me is thought de- 
sirable, it may be said that I am in height six feet four 
inches, nearly; lea.i in flesh, weighing on an average 
one hundred and eighty pounds; dark complexion, 
with coarse black hair and gray eyes. No other 
marks or brands recollected." 

There is the whole story, told by himself, and 
brought down to the point where he became a figure 
of national importance. 

His political philosophy was expounded in four 
elaborate speeches; one delivered at Peoria, 111., Octo- 
ber 16, 1854; one at Springfield, 111., June 16, 1858; 
one at Columbus, O., September 16, 1859, and one, 
February 27, i860, at Cooper Institute, in the city 
of New York. Of course Mr. Lincoln made many 
speeches and very good speeches. But these four, 
progressive in character, contain the sum total of his 
creed touching the organic character of the Govern- 
ment and at the same time his personal and party 
view of contemporary affairs. They show him to 



xiv Abraham Lincoln as a 

have been an old-line Whig of the school of Henry 
Clay, with strong emancipation leanings; a thorough 
anti-slavery man, but never an extremist or an ab.oli- 
tionist. To the last he hewed to the line thus laid 
down. 

Two or three years ago I referred to Abraham 
Lincoln — in a casual way — as one "inspired of God." 
I was taken to task for this and thrown upon my 
defence. Knowing less then than I now know of Mr. 
Lincoln, I confined myself to the superficial aspects 
of the case; to the career of a man who seemed to 
have lacked the opportunity to prepare himself for 
the great estate to which he had come, plucked as it 
were from obscurity by a caprice of fortune. 

Accepting the doctrine of inspiration as a law of 
the universe, I still stand to this belief; but I must 
qualify it as far as it conveys the idea that Mr. Lin- 
coln was not as well equipped in actual knowledge 
of men and affairs as any of his contemporaries. Mr. 
Webster once said that he had been preparing to make 
his reply to Hayne for thirty years. Mr. Lincoln had 
been in unconscious training for the Presidency for 
thirty years. His maiden address as a candidate for 
the Legislature, issued at the ripe old age of twenty- 
three, closes with these words, "But if the good peo- 
ple in their wisdom shall see fit to keep me in the 
background, I have been too familiar with disap- 
pointment to be very much chagrined." The man 
who wrote that sentence, thirty years later wrote this 
sentence: "The mystic chords of memory, stretching 
from every battle-field and patriot-grave to every liv- 



Man Inspired of God xv 

ing heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, 
will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again 
touched, as surely they will be, by the angels of our 
better nature." Between those two sentences, joined 
by a kindred, sombre thought, flowed a life-current — 

" Strong, without rage, without o'erflowing, full," 

pausing never for an instant; deepening while it ran, 
but nowise changing its course or its tones; always the 
same; calm; patient; affectionate; like one born to a 
destiny, and, as in a dream, feeling its resistless force. 

It is needful to a complete understanding of Mr. 
Lincoln's relation to the time and to his place in the 
political history of the country, that the student peruse 
closely the four speeches to which I have called atten- 
tion ; they underlie all that passed in the famous de- 
bate wth Douglas; all that their author said and did 
after he succeeded to the Presidency. They stand 
to-day as masterpieces of popular oratory. But for 
our present purpose the debate with Douglas will suf- 
fice — the most extraordinary intellectual spectacle the 
annals of our party warfare afford. Lincoln entered 
the canvass unknown outside the State of Illinois. He 
closed it renowned from one end of the land to the 
other. 

Judge Douglas was himself unsurpassed as a stump- 
speaker and ready debater. But in that campaign, 
from first to last, Judge Douglas was at a serious dis- 
advantage. His bark rode upon an ebbing tide; 
Lincoln's bark rode upon a flowing tide. African 
slavery was the issue now; and the whole trend of 



xvi Abraham Lincoln as a 

modern thought was set against slavery. The Demo- 
crats seemed hopelessly divided. The Little Giant 
had to face a triangular opposition embracing the Re- 
publicans, the Administration, or Buchanan Demo- 
crats, and a little remnant of the old Whigs, who 
fancied that their party was still alive and thought to 
hold some kind of balance of power. Judge Douglas 
called the combination the "allied army," and de- 
clared that he would deal with it "just as the Russians 
dealt with the allies at Sebastopol — that is, the Rus- 
sians did not stop to inquire, when they fired a broad- 
side, whether it hit an Englishman, a Frenchman, or 
a Turk." It was something more than a witticism 
when Mr. Lincoln rejoined, "In that case, I beg he 
will indulge us while we suggest to him that those 
allies took Sebastopol." 

He followed this centre-shot with volley after vol- 
ley of exposition so clear, of reasoning so close, of 
illustration so pointed, and, at times, of humor so in- 
cisive, that, though he lost his election — though the 
allies did not then take Sebastopol — his defeat count- 
ed for more than Douglas's victory, for it made him 
the logical and successful candidate for President of 
the United States two years later. 

What could be more captivating to an out-door 
audience than Lincoln's description "of the two per- 
sons who stand before the people of the State as can- 
didates for the Senate," to quote his prefatory words? 
"Judge Douglas," he said, "is of world-wide renown. 
All the anxious politicians of his party . . . 
have been looking upon him as certainly . . . 



Man Inspired of God xvii 

to be President of the United States. They have seen 
in his round, jolly, fruitful face, post-offices, land- 
offices, marshalships and cabinet appointments, 
chargeships and foreign missions, bursting and spread- 
ing out in wonderful exuberance, ready to be laid 
hold of by their greedy hands. And as they have 
been gazing upon this attractive picture so long, they 
cannot, in the little distraction that has taken place in 
the party, bring themselves to give up the charming 
hope ; but with greedier anxiety they rush about him, 
sustain him, and give him marches, triumphal entries, 
and receptions, beyond what in the days of his highest 
prosperity they could have brought about in his favor. 
On the contrary, nobody has ever expected me to be 
President. In my poor, lean, lank face nobody has 
ever seen that any cabbages were sprouting." 

As the debate advanced, these cheery tones deep- 
ened into harsher notes; crimination and recrimina- 
tion followed; the two gladiators were strung to their 
utmost tension. They became dreadfully in earnest. 
Personal collision was narrowly avoided. I have re- 
cently gone over the entire debate, and with a feeling 
I can only dscribe as most contemplative, most melan- 
choly. 

I knew Judge Douglas well ! I admired, respected, 
loved him. I shall never forget the day he quitted 
Washington to go to his home in Illinois to return no 
more. Tears were in his eyes and his voice trembled 
like a woman's. He was then a dying man. He had 
burned the candle at both ends from his boyhood; an 
eager, ardent, hard-working, pleasure-loving man; 



xviii Abraham Lincoln as a 

and, though not yet fifty, the candle was burned out. 
His infirmities were no greater than those of Mr. 
Clay; not to be mentioned with those of Mr. Webster. 
But he lived in more exacting times. The old-style 
party organ, with its mock heroics and its dull respec- 
tability, its beggarly array of empty news-columns and 
cheap advertising, had been succeeded by that unspar- 
ing, tell-tale scandal-monger, modern journalism, with 
its myriad of hands and eyes, its vast retinue of de- 
tectives, and its quick transit over flashing wires, anni- 
hilating time and space. Too fierce a light beat upon 
the private life of public men, and Douglas suffered 
from this as Clay and Webster, Silas Wright and 
Franklin Pierce had not suffered. 

The Presidential bee was in his bonnet, certainly; 
but its buzzing there was not noisier than in the bon- 
nets of other great Americans, who have been dazzled 
by that wretched bauble. His plans and schemes 
came to naught. He died at the moment when the 
death of those plans and schemes was made more pal- 
pable and impressive by the roar of cannon proclaim- 
ing the reality of that irrepressible conflict he had 
refused to foresee and had struggled to avert. His 
life-long rival was at the head of affairs. No one has 
found occasion to come to the rescue of his fame. No 
party interest has been identified with his memory. 
But when the truth of history is written, it will be 
told that, not less than Webster and Clay, he, too, 
was a patriotic man, who loved his country and tried 
to save the Union. He tried to save the Union, even 
as Webster and Clay had tried to save it, by compro- 



Man Inspired of God xix 

mises and expedients. It was too late. The string 
was played out. Where they had suceeded he failed; 
but, for the nobility of his intention, the amplitude 
of his resources, the splendor of his combat, he merits 
all that any leader of losing cause ever gained in the 
report of posterity; and posterity will not deny him 
the title of statesman. 

In that great debate it was Titan against Titan; 
and, perusing it after the lapse of forty years, the 
philosophic and impartial critic will conclude which 
got the better of it, Lincoln or Douglas, much accord- 
ing to his sympathy with the one or the other. Doug- 
las, as I have said, had the disadvantage of riding an 
ebb-tide. But Lincoln encountered a disadvantage in 
riding a flood-tide, which was flowing too fast for a 
man so conservative and so honest as he was. Thus 
there was not a little equivocation on both sides for- 
eign to the nature of the two. Both wanted to be 
frank. Both thought they were being frank. But 
each was a little afraid of his own logic; each was a 
little afraid of his own following; and hence there 
was considerable hair-splitting, involving accusations 
that did not accuse and denials that did not deny. 
They were politicians, these two, as well as states- 
men; they were politicians, and what they did not 
know about political campaigning was hardly worth 
knowing. Reverently, I take off my hat to both of 
them ; and I turn down the page ; I close the book and 
lay it on its shelf, with the inward ejaculation, "there 
were giants in those days." 

I am not undertaking to deliver an oral biography 



xx Abraham Lincoln as a 

of Abraham Lincoln, and shall pass over the events 
which quickly led up to his nomination and election 
to the Presidency in i860. 

I met the newly elected President the afternoon of 
the day in the early morning of which he had arrived 
in Washington. It was a Saturday, I think. He 
came to the Capitol under Mr. Seward's escort, and, 
among the rest, I was presented to him. His appear- 
ance did not impress me as fantastically as it had 
impressed Colonel McClure. I was more familiar 
with the Western type than Colonel McClure, and 
while Mr. Lincoln was certainly not an Adonis, even 
after prairie ideals, there was about him a dignity that 
commanded respect. 

I met him again the forenoon of March 4 in his 
apartment at Willard's Hotel as he was preparing 
to start to his inauguration, and was touched by his 
unaffected kindness; for I came with a matter requir- 
ing his immediate attention. He was entirely self- 
possessed; no trace of nervousness; and very obliging. 
I accompanied the cortege that passed from the Sen- 
ate chamber to the vast portico of the capitol, and, 
as Mr. Lincoln removed his hat to face the vast mul- 
titude in front and below, I extended my hand to 
receive it, but Judge Douglas, just beside me, reached 
over my outstretched arm and took the hat, holding 
it throughout the delivery of the inaugural address. 
I stood near enough to the speaker's elbow not to 
obstruct any gestures he might make, though he made 
but few ; and then it was that I began to comprehend 
something of the power of the man. 



Man Inspired of God xxi 

He delivered that inaugural address as if he had 
been delivering inaugural addresses all his life. Firm, 
resonant, earnest, it announced the coming of a man; 
of a leader of men; and in its ringing tones and ele- 
vated style, the gentlemen he had invited to become 
members of his political family — each of whom 
thought himself a bigger man than his master — 
might have heard the voice and seen the hand of a 
man born to command. Whether they did or not, 
they very soon ascertained the fact. From the hour 
Abraham Lincoln crossed the threshold of the White 
House to the hour he went thence to his death, there 
was not a moment when he did not dominate the po- 
litical and military situation and all his official subor- 
dinates. 

Mr. Seward was the first to fall a victim to his own 
temerity. One of the most extraordinary incidents 
that ever passed between a chief and his lieutenant 
came about within thirty days after the incoming of 
the new administration. On April i Mr. Seward 
submitted to Mr. Lincoln a memorandum, entitled 
"Some Thoughts for the President's Consideration." 
He began this by saying: "We are at the end of a 
month's administration, and yet without a policy, 
either foreign or domestic." There follows a series 
of suggestions hardly less remarkable for their 
character than for their emanation. They make quite 
a baker's dozen, for the most part flimsy and irrele- 
vant; but two of them are so conspicuous for a lack 
of sagacity and comprehension that I shall quote 
them as a sample of the whole : 



xxii Abraham Lincoln as a 

" We must change the question before the public," 
says Mr. Seward, " from one upon slavery, or about 
slavery, to one upon union or disunion " — as if it had 
not been thus changed already — and " I would de- 
mand explanations from Spain and France, energeti- 
cally, at once, . . . and, if satisfactory explana- 
tions are not received from Spain and France, I 
would convene Congress and declare war against 
them. ... I would seek explanations from 
Great Britain and Russia, and send agents into 
Canada, Mexico, and Central America to arouse a 
vigorous spirit of continental independence on this 
continent against European intervention." 

Think of it! At the moment this advice was seri- 
ously given the head of the State by the head of the 
Cabinet — supposed to be the most accomplished 
statesman and astute diplomatist of his time — a South- 
ern Confederacy had been actually established, and 
Europe was only too eager for some pretext to put in 
its oar, effectually, finally, to compass the dissolution 
of the Union and the defeat of the Republican ex- 
periment in America. The Government of the United 
States had but to make a grimace at France and 
Spain; to bat its eye at England and Russia, to raise 
up a quadruple alliance, monarchy against democracy, 
bringing down upon itself the navies of the world, 
and double assuring, double confirming the Govern- 
ment of Jefferson Davis. 

In concluding these astounding counsels, Mr. Sew- 
ard says: 

" But whatever policy we adopt, there must be an 
energetic prosecution of it. 



Man Inspired of God xxiii 

11 For this purpose it must be somebody's business 
to pursue and direct it incessantly. 

11 Either the President must do it himself and be all 
the while active in it, or devolve it on some member of 
his Cabinet. 

11 Once adopted, all debates on it must end and all 
agree and abide. 

" It is not in my especial province; but I neither 
seek to evade nor assume responsibility." 

Before hearing Mr. Lincoln's answer to all this, 
consider what it really implied. If Mr. Seward had 
simply said: "Mr. Lincoln, you are a failure as 
President, but turn over the direction of affairs exclu- 
sively to me, and all shall be well and all be forgiv- 
en," he could not have spoken more explicitly and 
hardly more offensively. 

Now let us see how a great man carries himself at 
a critical moment under extreme provocation. Here 
is the answer Mr. Lincob sent Mr. Seward that very 
night: 

Executive Mansion, April i, 1861. 
" Hon. W. H. Seward : 

"My Dear Sir: Since parting with you I have 
been considering your paper dated this day and en- 
titled ' some thoughts for the President's considera- 
tion.' The first proposition in it is, ' we are at the 
end of a month's administration and yet without a 
policy, either domestic or foreign.' 

" At the beginning of that month in the inaugural 
I said: ' The power confided to me will be used to 
hold, occupy, and possess the property and places be- 
longing to the Government, and to collect the duties 
and imports.' This had your distinct approval at the 



xxiv Abraham Lincoln as a 

time; and taken in connection with the order I imme- 
diately gave General Scott, directing him to employ 
every means in his power to strengthen and hold the 
forts, comprises the exact domestic policy you urge, 
with the single exception that it does not propose to 
abandon Fort Sumter. 

" The news received yesterday in regard to Santo 
Domingo certainly brings a new item within the range 
of our foreign policy, but up to that time we have 
been preparing circulars and instructions to ministers 
and the like, all in perfect harmony, without even a 
suggestion that we had no foreign policy. 

" Upon your closing proposition — that ' What- 
ever policy we adopt, there must be an energetic prose- 
cution of it. 

" ' For this purpose it must be somebody's business 
to pursue and direct it incessantly. 

" * Either the President must do it himself and be 
all the while active in it, or devolve it upon some 
member of his Cabinet. 

" ' Once adopted, debates must end, and all agree 
and abide.' I remark that if this be done, I must do 
it. When a general line of policy is adopted, I ap- 
prehend there is no danger of its being changed with- 
out good reason, or continuing to be a subject of un- 
necessary debate ; still, upon points arising in its prog- 
ress, I wish, and suppose I am entitled to have, the 
advice of all the Cabinet. Your obedient servant, 

" A. Lincoln." 

I agree with Lincoln's biographers that in this let- 
ter not a word was omitted that was necessary, and 
not a hint or allusion is contained that could be dis- 
pensed with. It was conclusive. It ended the argu- 
ment. Mr. Seward dropped into his place. Mr. Lin- 



Man Inspired of God xxv 

coin never referred to it. From that time forward 
the understanding between them was mutual and per- 
fect. So much so that when, May 2 1 following, Mr. 
Seward submitted to the President the draft of a 
letter of instruction to Charles Francis Adams, then 
Minister to England, Mr. Lincoln did not hesitate to 
change much of its character and purpose by his al- 
teration of its text. This original copy of this des- 
patch, in Mr. Seward's handwriting, with Mr. Lin- 
coln's interlineations, is still to be seen on file in the 
Department of State. It is safe to say that, if that 
letter had gone as Mr. Seward wrote it, a war with 
England would have been, if not inevitable, yet very 
likely. Mr. Lincoln's additions, hardly less than his 
suppressions, present a curious contrast between the 
seer in affairs and the scholar in affairs. Even in the 
substitution of one word for another, Mr. Lincoln 
shows a grasp both upon the situation and the lan- 
guage which seems to have been wholly wanting in 
Mr. Seward, with all his experience and learning. It 
is said that, pondering over this document, weighing 
in his mind its meaning and import, his head bowed 
and pencil in hand, Mr. Lincoln was overheard mur- 
muring to himself: "One war at a time — one war 
at a time." 

While I am on this matter of who was really Pres- 
ident while Abraham Lincoln occupied the office, I 
may as well settle it. We all remember how, in set- 
ting up for a bigger man than his chief, Mr. Chase 
fared no better than Mr. Seward. But it is some- 
times claimed that Mr. Stanton was more successful 



xxvi Abraham Lincoln as a 

in this line. Many stories are told of how Stanton 
lorded it over Lincoln. On a certain occasion it is 
related that the President was informed by an irate 
friend that the Secretary of War had not only refused 
to execute an order of his, but had called him a fool 
into the bargain. "Did Stanton say I was a fool?" 
said Lincoln. "Yes," replied his friend, "he said you 
were a blank, blank fool I" Lincoln looked first good- 
humoredly at his friend and then furtively out of the 
window in the direction of the War Department, and 
carelessly observed: "Well, if Stanton says that I 
am a blank fool, it must be so, for Stanton is nearly 
always right and generally means what he says. I 
think I shall just have to step over and see Stanton." 

On another occasion Mr. Lincoln is quoted as say- 
ing: "I have very little influence with this Adminis- 
tration, but I hope to have more with the next." 

Complacent humor such as this simply denotes as- 
sured position. It is merely the graciousness of con- 
scious power. But there happens to be on record a 
story of a different kind. This is related by Gen. 
James B. Fry, Provost Marshal General of the Army, 
on duty in the War Department. 

As General Fry tells it, Mr. Stanton seems to have 
had the right of it. The President had given an order 
which the Secretary of War had refused to issue. The 
President thereupon came into the War Department 
and this is what happened. In answer to Mr. Lin- 
coln's inquiry as to the cause of the trouble, Mr. Stan- 
ton went over the record and the grounds for his ac- 
tion, and concluded with: "Now, Mr. President, 



Man Inspired of God xxvii 

these are the facts, and you must see that your order 
cannot be executed." 

Lincoln sat upon a sofa with is legs crossed — I am 
quoting General Fry — and did not say a word until 
the Secretary's last remark. Then he said in a some- 
what positive tone : "Mr. Secretary, I reckon you'll 
have to execute the order." 

Stanton replied with asperity: "Mr. President, I 
cannot do it. The order is an improper one and I 
cannot execute it." 

Lincoln fixed his eye upon Stanton, and in a firm 
voice, and with an accent that clearly showed his de- 
termination, he said : 

"Mr. Secretary, it will have to be done." 

"Stanton then realized" — I am still quoting Gen- 
eral Fry — "that he was overmatched. He had made 
a square issue with the President and been defeated, 
notwithstanding the fact that he was in the right. 
Upon an intimation from him, I withdrew and did 
not witness his surrender. A few minutes after I 
reached my office I received instructions from the 
Secretary to carry out the President's order. Stanton 
never mentioned the subject to me afterward, nor did 
I ever ascertain the special, and no doubt sufficient 
reason, which the President had for his action in the 
case." 

Once General Halleck got on a high horse, and de- 
manded that, if Mr. Lincoln approved some ill-na- 
tured remarks alleged to have been made of certain 
military men about Washington, by Montgomery 
Blair, the Postmaster-General, he should dismiss the 



xxviii Abraham Lincoln as a 

officers from the service, but, if he did not approve, 
he should dismiss the Postmaster-General from the 
Cabinet. Mr. Lincoln's reply is very characteristic. 
He declined to do either of the things demanded. He 
said : 

" Whether the remarks were really made I do not 
know, nor do I suppose such knowledge necessary to 
a correct response. If they were made, I do not ap- 
prove them; and yet, under the circumstances, I would 
not dismiss a member of the Cabinet therefor. I do 
not consider what may have been hastily said in a 
moment of vexation . . . sufficient ground for 
so grave a step. Besides this, truth is generally the 
best vindication against slander. I propose continu- 
ing to be myself the judge as to when a member of the 
Cabinet shall be dismissed." 

Next day, however, he issued a warning to the 
members of his political family, which, in the form 
of a memorandum, he read to them. There is noth- 
ing equivocal about this. In language and in tone it 
is the utterance of a master. I will read it to you, 
as it is very brief and to the purpose. The President 
said: 

" I must myself be the judge how long to retain and 
when to remove any of you from his position. It 
would greatly pain me to discover any of you en- 
deavoring to procure another's removal, or in any 
way to prejudice him before the public. Such en- 
deavor would be a wrong to me, and much worse, a 
wrong to the country. My wish is, that on this sub- 
ject no remark be made, nor any question be asked by 
any of you, here or elsewhere, now or hereafter." 



Man Inspired of God xxix 

Always courteous, always tolerant, always making 
allowance, yet always explicit, his was the master- 
spirit, his the guiding hand; committing to each of the 
members of his Cabinet the details of the work of his 
own department; caring nothing for petty sovereignty; 
but reserving to himself all that related to great poli- 
cies, the starting of moral forces and the moving of 
organized ideas. 

I want to say just here a few words about Mr. Lin- 
coln's relation to the South and the people of the 
South. 

He was, himself, a Southern man. He and all his 
tribe were Southerners. Although he left Kentucky 
when but a child, he was an old child; he never was 
very young; and he grew to manhood in a Kentucky 
colony; for what was Illinois in those days but a Ken- 
tucky colony, grown since somewhat out of propor- 
tion ? He was in no sense what we in the South used 
to call " a poor white." Awkward, perhaps; ungain- 
ly, perhaps, but aspiring; the spirit of a hero beneath 
that rugged exterior; the soul of a prose-poet behind 
those heavy brows; the courage of a lion back of those 
patient, kindly aspects; and, before he was of legal 
age, a leader of men. His first love was a Rutledge; 
his wife was a Todd. 

Let the romancist tell the story of his romance. I 
dare not. No sadder idyl can be found in all the 
short and simple annals of the poor. 

We know that he was a prose-poet; for have we not 
that immortal prose-poem recited at Gettysburg? 
We know that he was a statesman ; for has not time 



xxx Abraham Lincoln as a 

vindicated his conclusions? But the South does not 
know, except as a kind of hearsay, that he was a 
friend; the sole friend who had the power and the 
will to save it from itself. He was the one man in 
public life who could have come to the head of affairs 
in 1 86 1, bringing with him none of the embittered 
resentments growing out of the anti-slavery battle. 
While Seward, Chase, Sumner, and the rest had been 
engaged in hand-to-hand combat with the Southern 
leaders at Washington, Lincoln, a philosopher and a 
statesman, had been observing the course of events 
from afar, and like a philosopher and a statesman. 
The direst blow that could have been laid upon the 
prostrate South was delivered by the assassin's bullet 
that struck him down. 

But I digress. Throughout the contention that 
preceded the war, amid the passions that attended the 
war itself, not one bitter, proscriptive word escaped 
the lips of Abraham Lincoln, while there was hardly 
a day that he was not projecting his great personality 
between some Southern man or woman and danger. 

Under date of February 2, 1848, from the hall of 
the House of Representatives at Washington, while 
he was serving as a member of Congress, he wrote 
this short note to his law partner at Springfield: 

" Dear William: I take up my pen to tell you 
that Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, a little, slim, pale- 
faced, consumptive man, with a voice like Logan's " 
(that was Stephen T., not John A.), " has just con- 
cluded the very best speech of an hour's length I ever 
heard. My old, withered, dry eyes " (he was then 
not quite thirty-seven years of age) " are full of tears 
yet." 



Man Inspired of God xxxi 

From that time forward he never ceased to love 
Stephens, of Georgia. 

After that famous Hampton Roads conference, 
when the Confederate Commissioners, Stephens, 
Campbell, and Hunter, had traversed the field of 
official routine with Mr. Lincoln, the President, and 
Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State, Lincoln, the 
friend, still the old Whig colleague, though one was 
now President of the United States and the other Vice- 
President of the Southern Confederacy, took the 
" slim, pale-faced, consumptive man " aside, and, 
pointing to a sheet of paper he held in his hand, said: 
" Stephens, let me write ' Union ' at the top of that 
page, and you may write below it whatever else you 
please." 

In the preceding conversation Mr. Lincoln had inti- 
mated that payment for the slaves was not outside a 
possible agreement for reunion and peace. He based 
that statement upon a plan he already had in hand, to 
appropriate four hundred millions of dollars to this 
purpose. 

There are those who have put themselves to the 
pains of challenging this statement of mine. It ad- 
mits of no possible equivocation. Mr. Lincoln carried 
with him to Fortress Monroe two documents that still 
stand in his own handwriting; one of them a joint 
resolution to be passed by the two Houses of Congress 
appropriating the four hundred millions, the other a 
proclamation to be issued by himself, as President, 
when the joint resolution had been passed. These 
formed no part of the discussion at Hampton Roads, 



xxxii Abraham Lincoln as a 

because Mr. Stephens told Mr. Lincoln they were 
limited to treating upon the basis of the recognition 
of the Confederacy, and to all intents and purposes 
the conference died before it was actually born. But 
Mr. Lincoln was so filled with the idea that next day, 
when he had returned to Washington, he submitted 
the two documents to the members of his Cabinet. 
Excepting Mr. Seward, they were all against him. 
He said: "Why, gentlemen, how long is the war 
going to last? It is not going to end this side of a 
hundred days, is it? It is costing us four millions a 
day. There are the four hundred millions, not count- 
ing the loss of life and property in the meantime. But 
you are all against me, and I will not press the matter 
upon you." I have not cited this fact of history to 
attack, or even to criticise, the policy of the Confeder- 
ate Government, but simply to illustrate the wise mag- 
nanimity and justice of the character of Abraham Lin- 
coln. For my part, I rejoice that the war did not end 
at Fortress Monroe — or any other conference — but 
that it was fought out to its bitter and logical conclu- 
sion at Appomattox. 

It was the will of God that there should be, as 
God's own prophet had promised, " a new birth of 
freedom," and this could only be reached by the ob- 
literation of the very idea of slavery. God struck 
Lincoln down in the moment of his triumph, to attain 
it; He blighted the South to attain it. But He did 
attain it. And here we are this night to attest it. 
God's will be done on earth as it is done in Heaven. 
But let no Southern man point finger at me because I 



Man Inspired of God xxxiii 

canonize Abraham Lincoln, for he was the one friend 
we had at court when friends were most in need; he 
was the one man in power who wanted to preserve us 
intact, to save us from the wolves of passion and 
plunder that stood at our door; and as that God, of 
whom it has been said that " whom He loveth He 
chasteneth," meant that the South should be 
chastened, Lincoln was put out of the way by the 
bullet of an assassin, having neither lot nor parcel, 
North or South, but a winged emissary of fate, flown 
from the shadows of the mystic world, which JEschy- 
lus and Shakespeare created and consecrated to 
tragedy ! 

I sometimes wonder shall we ever attain a journal- 
ism sufficiently upright in its treatment of current 
events to publish fully and fairly the utterances of our 
public men, and, except in cases of provable dishonor, 
to leave their motives and their personalities alone? 

Reading just what Abraham Lincoln did say and 
did do, it is inconceivable how such a man could have 
aroused antagonism so bitter and abuse so savage, to 
fall at last by the hand of an assassin. 

We boast our superior civilization and our enlight- 
ened freedom of speech ; and yet, how few of us — 
when a strange voice begins to utter unfamiliar or un- 
palatable things — how few of us stop and ask our- 
selves, May not this man be speaking the truth after 
all? It is so easy to call names. It is so easy to im- 
punge motives. It is so easy to misrepresent opinions 
we cannot answer. From the least to the greatest 
what creatures we are of party spirit, and yet, for the 



xxxiv Abraham Lincoln as a 

most part, how small its aims, how imperfect its in- 
struments, how disappointing its conclusions ! 

One thinks now that the world in which Abraham 
Lincoln lived might have dealt more gently by such a 
man. He was himself so gentle — so upright in na- 
ture and so broad of mind — so sunny and so tolerant 
in temper — so simple and so unaffected in bearing 
— a rude exterior covering an undaunted spirit, prov- 
ing by his every act and word that — 

" The bravest are the tenderest, 
The loving are the daring." 

Though he was a party leader, he was a typical and 
patriotic American, in whom even his enemies might 
have found something to respect and admire. But 
it could not be so. He committed one grevious of- 
fence; he dared to think and he was not afraid to 
speak; he was far in advance of his party and his 
time; and men are slow to forgive what they do not 
readily understand. 

Yet, all the while that the waves of passion were 
breaking against his sturdy figure, reared above the 
dead-level, as a lone oak upon a sandy beach, not one 
harsh word rankled in his heart to sour the milk of 
human kindness that, like a perennial spring from the 
gnarled roots of some majestic tree, flowed thence. 
He would smooth over a rough place in his official in- 
tercourse with a funny story fitting the case in point, 
and they called him a trifler. He would round off a 
logical argument with a familiar example, hitting the 
nail squarely on the head and driving it home, and 



Man Inspired of God xxxv 

they called him a buffoon. Big wigs and little wigs 
were agreed that he lowered the dignity of debate; as 
if debates were intended to mystify, and not to clarify 
truth. Yet he went on and on, and never backward, 
until his time was come, when his genius, fully 
ripened, rose to emergencies. Where did he get his 
style? Ask Shakespeare and Burns where they got 
their style. Where did he get his grasp upon affairs 
and his knowledge of men ? Ask the Lord God who 
created miracles in Luther and Bonaparte ! 

Here, under date of November 21, 1864, am id the 
excitement attendant upon his re-election to the Presi- 
dency, Mr. Lincoln found time to write the following 
letter to Mrs. Bixby, of Boston, a poor widow who 
had lost five sons killed in battle. 

My Dear Madam : I have been shown in the files 
of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant- 
General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of 
five sons who have died gloriously on the field of bat- 
tle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words 
of mine which should attempt to beguile you from a 
loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from 
tendering you the consolation that may be found in 
the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray 
that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish 
of your bereavement and leave you only the cherished 
memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride 
that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice 
upon the altar of freedom. 

Yours very sincerely and respectfully, 

A. Lincoln. 

Contrast this exquisite prose-poem with the answer 
he made to General Grant, when Grant asked him 



XXXVI 



Abraham Lincoln as a 



whether he should make an effort to capture Jefferson 
Davis. " I told Grant," said Lincoln, relating the 
incident, " the story of an Irishman who had taken 
Father Mathew's pledge. Soon thereafter, becoming 
very thirsty, he slipped into a saloon and asked for a 
lemonade, and while it was being mixed he leaned 
over and whispered to the bartender : ' Av ye could 
drap a bit o' brandy in it, all unbeknown to myself, I'd 
make no fuss about it.' My notion was that if Grant 
could let Jeff Davis escape all unbeknown to himself, 
he was to let him go. I didn't want him." 

When we recall all that did happen when Jefferson 
Davis was captured, and what a white elephant he be- 
came in the hands of the Government, it will be seen 
that there was sagacity as well as humor in Lincoln's 
illustration. 

I have said that Abraham Lincoln was an old-line 
Whig of the school of Henry Clay, with strong free- 
soil opinions, but never an extremist or an abolition- 
ist. He was what they used to call in those old days 
" a Conscience Whig." He stood in actual awe of 
the Constitution and his oath of office. Hating slav- 
er}', he recognized its constitutional existence and 
rights. He wanted gradually to extinguish it, not to 
despoil those who held it as a property interest. He 
was so faithful to these principles that he approached 
emancipation, not only with great deliberation, but 
with many misgivings. He issued his final proclama- 
tion as a military necessity; as a war measure; and 
even then, so just was his nature that he was, as I have 
shown, meditating some kind of restitution. 



Man Inspired of God xxxvii 

I gather that he was not a civil service reformer of 
the school of Grover Cleveland, because I find among 
his papers a short, peremptory note to Stanton, in 
which he says: " I personally wish Jacob Freese, of 
New Jersey, appointed colonel of a colored regiment, 
and this regardless of whether he can tell the exact 
color of Julius Caesar's hair." 

His unconventionalism was equalled only by his 
humanity. No custodian of absolute power ever 
exercised it so benignly. His interposition in behalf 
of men sentenced to death by courts-martial became 
so demoralizing that his generals in the field united in 
a round-robin protest. Both Grant and Sherman cut 
the wires between army headquarters and the White 
House, to escape his interference with the iron rule of 
military discipline. 

A characteristic story is told by John B. Ally, of 
Boston, who, going to the White House three days in 
succession, found each day in one of the outer halls a 
gray-haired old man, silently weeping. The third 
day, touched by this not uncommon spectacle, he went 
up to the old man and ascertained that he had a son 
under sentence of death, and was trying to reach the 
President. 

" Come along," said Ally, " I'll take you to the 
President." 

Mr. Lincoln listened to the old man's pitiful story, 
and then sadly replied that he had just received a tele- 
gram from the general commanding imploring him 
not to interfere. The old man cast one last heart- 
broken look at the President, and started shuffling 



xxxviii Abraham Lincoln as a 

toward the door. Before he reached it Mr. Lincoln 
called him back. " Come back, old man," he said, 
" come back ! The generals may telegraph and tele- 
graph, but I am going to pardon that young man." 

Thereupon he sent a despatch directing sentence to 
be suspended until execution should be ordered by 
himself. Then the old man burst out crying again. 
" Mr. President," said he, " that is not a pardon, you 
only hold up the sentence of my boy until you can 
order him to be shot! " 

Lincoln turned quickly and, half smiles, half tears, 
replied: " Go along, old man, go along in peace; if 
your son lives until I order him to be shot, he'll grow 
to be as old as Methuselah ! " 

I could keep you here all night relating such inci- 
dents. They were common occurrences at the White 
House. There was not a day of Lincoln's life that 
he was not doing some act of charity; not like a senti- 
mentalist, overcome by cheap emotion, but like a 
brave, sensible man, who knew where to draw the line 
and who made few, if any, mistakes. 

I find no better examples of the peculiar cast of his 
mind than are interspersed throughout the record of 
his intercourse with his own relatives. His domestic 
correspondence is full of canny wisdom and uncon- 
scious humor. In particular, he had a ne'er-do-well 
step-brother, by the name of Johnston, a son of his 
father's second wife, of whom he was very fond. 
There are many letters to this Johnston. One of 
these I am going to read you, because it will require 
neither apology nor explanation. It is illustrative of 



Man Inspired of God xxxix 

both the canny wisdom and unconscious humor. 
Thus: 

" Springfield, January 2, 185 1. 

" Dear Brother: Your request for eighty dollars 
I do not think it best to comply with now. At the 
various times I have helped you a little you have said : 
4 We can get along very well now,' but in a short time 
I find you in the same difficulty again. Now this can 
only happen through some defect in you. What that 
defect is I think I know. You are not lazy, and still 
you are an idler. I doubt whether since I saw you 
you have done a good, whole day's work in any one 
day. You do not very much dislike to work, and still 
you do not work much, merely because it does not 
seem to you you get enough for it. This habit of 
uselessly wasting time is the whole difficulty. It is 
vastly important to you, and still more to your chil- 
dren, that you break the habit. . . . 

" You are now in need of some money, and what I 
propose is that you shall go to work, ' tooth and nail,' 
for somebody who will give you money for it. Let 
father and your boys take charge of your things at 
home, prepare for a crop and make the crop, and you 
go to work for the best money wages you can get, or 
in discharge of any debt you owe, and, to secure you 
a fair reward for your labor, I promise you that for 
every dollar you will get for your labor between this 
and the 1st of May, either in money, or in your in- 
debtedness, I will then give you one other dollar. By 
this, if you hire yourself for ten dollars a month, 
from me you will get ten dollars more, making twenty 
dollars. . . . 

" In this I do not mean that you shall go off to St. 
Louis or the lead mines in Missouri, or the gold mines 
in California, but I mean for you to go at it for the 
best wages you can get close to home in Coles County. 



xl Abraham Lincoln as a 

If you will do this you will soon be out of debt, and, 
what is better, you will have acquired a habit which 
will keep you from getting in debt again. But if I 
should now clear you out of debt, next year you would 
be just as deep in debt as ever. 

" You say you would almost give your place in 
Heaven for seventy or eighty dollars? Then you 
value your place in Heaven very cheap, for I am sure 
you can, with the offer I make, get the seventy or 
eighty dollars for four or five months' work. 

" You say if I will lend you the money, you will 
deed me the land, and, if you don't pay the money 
back, you will deliver possession. Nonsense! If 
you cannot now live with the land, how will you then 
live without it ? 

" You have always been kind to me, and I do not 
mean to be unkind to you. On the contrary, if you 
will but follow my advice, you will find it worth 
eighty times eighty dollars to you. 

" Affectionately your brother, 

"A. Lincoln." 

Could anything be wiser, sweeter, or delivered in 
terms more specific yet more fraternal? And that 
was Abraham Lincoln from the crown of his head to 
the soles of his feet. 

I am going to spare you and myself, and the dear 
ones of his own blood who are here to-night, the repe- 
tition of the story of the awful tragedy that ended the 
life of this great man, this good man, this typical 
American. 

Beside that tragedy, most other tragedies, epic and 
real, become insignificant. " Within the narrow com- 
pass of that stage-box that night were five human be- 
ings; the most illustrious of modern heroes, crowned 



Man Inspired of God xli 

with the most stupendous victory of modern times; his 
beloved wife, proud and happy; two betrothed lovers 
with all the promise of felicity that youth, social po- 
sition, and wealth could give them ; and a young actor, 
handsome as Endymion upon Latmus, the idol of his 
little world. The glitter of fame, happiness, and 
ease was upon the entire group, but in an instant 
everything was to be changed with the blinding swift- 
ness of enchantment. Quick death was to come on 
the central figure of that company. . . . Over 
all the rest the blackest fates hovered menacingly; 
fates from which a mother might pray that kindly 
death would save her children in their infancy. One 
was to wander with the stain of murder on his soul, 
with the curses of a world upon his name, with a price 
set upon his head, in frightful physical pain, till he 
died a dog's death in a burning barn. The stricken 
wife was to pass the rest of her days in melancholy 
and madness; of those two young lovers, one was to 
slay the other, and then end his life a raving ma- 
niac! "* No book of tragedy contains a single chap- 
ter quite so dark as that. 

And what was the mysterious power of this mysteri- 
ous man, and whence ? 

His was the genius of common-sense; of common- 
sense in action; of common-sense in thought; of com- 
mon-sense enriched by experience and unhindered by 
fear. " He was a common man," says his friend, 
Joshua Speed, "expanded into giant proportions; 
well acquainted with the people, he placed his hand on 

1 Hay and Nicolay's Life. 



xlii Abraham Lincoln as a 

the beating pulse of the nation, judged of its disease, 
and was ready with a remedy." Inspired he was 
truly, as Shakespeare was inspired; as Mozart was 
inspired; as Burns was inspired; each, like him, sprung 
directly from the people. 

I look into the crystal globe that, slowly turning, 
tells the story of his life, and I see a little heart-broken 
boy, weeping by the outstretched form of a dead 
mother, then bravely, nobly trudging a hundred miles 
to obtain her Christian burial. I see this motherless 
lad growing to manhood amid scenes that seem to 
lead to nothing but abasement; no teachers; no books; 
no chart, except his own untutored mind ; no compass, 
except his own undisciplined will; no light, save light 
from Heaven; yet, like the caravel of Columbus, 
struggling on and on through the trough of the sea, 
always toward the destined land. I see the full- 
grown man, stalwart and brave, an athlete in activity 
of movement and strength of limb, yet vexed by weird 
dreams and visions; of life, of love, of religion, some- 
times verging on despair. I see the mind, grown at 
length as robust as the body, throw off these phan- 
toms of the imagination and give itself wholly to the 
work-a-day uses of the world; the rearing of children; 
the earning of bread; the multiplied duties of life. I 
see the party leader, self-confident in conscious recti- 
tude; original, because it was not his nature to follow; 
potent, because he was fearless, pursuing his convic- 
tions with earnest zeal, and urging them upon his fel- 
lows with the resources of an oratory which was hard- 
ly more impressive than it was many-sided. I see 



Man Inspired of God xliii 

him, the preferred among his fellows, ascend the emi- 
nence reserved for him, and him alone of all the 
statesmen of the time, amid the derision of opponents 
and the distrust of supporters, yet unawed and un- 
moved, because thoroughly equipped to meet the 
emergency. The same being, from first to last; the 
poor child weeping over a dead mother; the great 
chief sobbing amid the cruel horrors of war; flinching 
never from duty, nor changing his life-long ways of 
dealing with the stern realities which pressed upon 
him and hurried him onward. And, last scene of all, 
that ends this strange, eventful history, I see him ly- 
ing dead there in the capitol of the nation, to which 
he had rendered " the last, full measure of his devo- 
tion," the flag of his country around him, the world 
in mourning, and, asking myself how could any man 
have hated that man, I ask you, how can any man re- 
fuse his homage to his memory? Surely, he was one 
of God's own; not in any sense a creature of circum- 
stance, or accident. Recurring to the doctrine of in- 
spiration, I say, again and again, he was inspired of 
God, and I cannot see how anyone who believes in 
that doctrine can believe him as anything else. 

From Caesar to Bismarck and Gladstone the world 
has had its statesmen and its soldiers — men who rose 
from obscurity to eminence and power step by step, 
through a series of geometric progression as it were, 
each advancement following in regular order one af- 
ter the other, the whole obedient to well-established 
and well-understood laws of cause and effect. They 
were not what we call " men of destiny." They were 



xliv Abraham Lincoln as a 

" men of the time." They were men whose careers 
had a beginning, a middle, and an end, rounding off 
lives with histories, full it may be of interesting and 
exciting event, but comprehensive and comprehensi- 
ble; simple, clear, complete. 

The inspired ones are fewer. Whence their em- 
anation, where and how they got their power, by 
what rule they lived, moved, and had their being, we 
know not. There is no explication to their lives. 
They rose from shadow and they went in mist. We 
see them, feel them, but we know them not. They 
came, God's word upon their lips; they did their 
office, God's mantle about them; and they vanished, 
God's holy light between the world and them, leaving 
behind a memory, half mortal and half myth. From 
first to last they were the creations of some special 
Providence, baffling the wit of man to fathom, defeat- 
ing the machinations of the world, the flesh and the 
devil, until their work was done, then passing from 
the scene as mysteriously as they had come upon it. 

Tried by this standard, where shall we find an ex- 
ample so impressive as Abraham Lincoln, whose 
career might be chanted by a Greek chorus as at once 
the prelude and the epilogue of the most imperial 
theme of modern times? 

Born as lowly as the Son of God, in a hovel; reared 
in penury, squalor, with no gleam of light or fair sur- 
rounding; without graces, actual or acquired; with- 
out name or fame or official training; it was reserved 
for this strange being, late in life, to be snatched from 
obscurity, raised to supreme command at a supreme 



Man Inspired of God xlv 

moment, and Intrusted with the destiny of a nation. 

The great leaders of his party, the most ex- 
perienced and accomplished public men of the day, 
were made to stand aside; were sent to the rear, while 
this fantastic figure was led by unseen hands to the 
front and given the reins of power. It is immaterial 
whether we were for him, or against him ; wholly im- 
material. That, during four years, carrying with 
them such a weight of responsibility as the world 
never witnessed before, he filled the vast space allotted 
him in the eyes and actions of mankind, is to say that 
he was inspired of God, for nowhere else could he 
have acquired the wisdom and the virtue. 

Where did Shakespeare get his genius? Where 
did Mozart get his music? Whose hand smote the 
lyre of the Scottish ploughman, and stayed the life of 
the German priest? God, God, and God alone; and 
as surely as these were raised up by God, inspired by 
God, was Abraham Lincoln; and a thousand years 
hence, no drama, no tragedy, no epic poem will be 
filled with greater wonder, or be followed by mankind 
with deeper feeling than that which tells the story of 
his life and death. 



{ioAA^i UJll^AArK 



Abraham Lincoln 

Photogravure from a Pari rait taken from 1 
Charles A. Barry in Springfield, Illinois, 
June, .i860. 



Lincoln, the Man of the People 1 

By Edwin Markham 

When the Norn Mother saw the Whirlwind Hour 
Greatening and darkening as it hurried on, 
She left the Heaven of Heroes and came down 
To make a man to meet the mighty need. 
She took the tried clay of the common road — 
Clay warm yet with the genial heat of earth, 
Dashed through it all a strain of prophecy, 
Tempered the heap with touch of mortal tears; 
Then mixed a laughter with the serious stuff. 

The color of the ground was in him, the red earth, 

The tang and odor of the primal things — 

The rectitude and patience of the rocks; 

The gladness of the wind that shakes the corn; 

The courage of the bird that dares the sea; 

The justice of the rain that loves all leaves; 

The pity of the snow that hides all scars; 

The loving kindness of the wayside well; 

The tolerance and equity of light 

That gives as freely to the shrinking weed 

^rom "Lincoln and Other Poems," published by McClure, 
Phillips and Co., New York. This poem revised and copyrighted, 
1906, by Edwin Markham. 

xlvii 



xlviii Abraham Lincoln 

As to the great oak flaring to the wind — 
To the grave's low hill as to the Matterhorn 
That shoulders out the sky. 

And so he came. 
From prairie cabin up to Capitol, 
One fair ideal led our chieftain on. 
Forevermore he burned to do his deed 
With the fine stroke and gesture of a king. 
He built the rail pile as he built the State, 
Pouring his splendid strength through every blow, 
The conscience of him testing every stroke, 
To make his deed the measure of a man. 

So came the Captain with the mighty heart; 
And when the step of earthquake shook the house, 
Wrenching the rafters from their ancient hold, 
He held the ridgepole up and spiked again 
The rafters of the Home. He held his place — 
Held the long purpose like a growing tree — 
Held on through blame and faltered not at praise. 
And when he fell in whirlwind, he went down 
As when a kingly cedar green with boughs, 
Goes down with a great shout upon the hills, 
And leaves a lonesome place against the sky. 



Illustrations 



Abraham Lincoln Frontispiece 

Photogravure from the original photograph taken about i860 by 
Hesler, of Chicago, 111. 

PAGE 

Abraham Lincoln xlvi 

Photogravure from a portrait taken from life by Charles A. 
Barry at Springfield, 111., June, i860. 

Interior of Lincoln's Log Cabin 18 

From an original photograph. 

Abraham Lincoln 154 

Wood-engraving by Timothy Cole from an original ambrotype 
taken in i860. 

Stephen A. Douglas 188 

Wood-engraving from a daguerreotype. 

Statue of Lincoln at Florence, Italy . . . 222 

From a photograph taken by L. Powers. 

Abraham Lincoln 270 

From a rare photograph by Brady. 

Abraham Lincoln 292 

From an ambrotype taken at Pittsfield, 111., October I, 1858. 

Lincoln's Letter to T. J. Pickett, April 16, 

1859 334 

Facsimile of the original letter. 



Complete Works of 
Abraham Lincoln 

Volume III 
[June — Sept. 1858] 



Complete Works of 
Abraham Lincoln 



Speech delivered at Springfield, Illinois, 
at the Close of the Republican State 
Convention by which Mr. Lincoln had 
been named as their candidate for 
United States Senator, June 16, 1858 * 

MR. PRESIDENT and Gentlemen of 
the Convention: 
If we could first know where we 
are, and whither we are tending, we could better 
judge what to do, and how to do it. We are 
now far into the fifth year since a policy was 
initiated with the avowed object and confident 
promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. 

x The Illinois Republican State Convention met in Springfield, 
June 16th, 1858, and passed a separate resolution declaring " that 
Abraham Lincoln is the first and only choice of the Republicans 
for the United States Senate as the successor of Stephen A. 
Douglas." Eight o'clock in the evening of the same day this 
" divided house " speech was delivered before the convention. 
It was probably the most carefully prepared address of Lin- 
I 



2 Abraham Lincoln [June 16 

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation 
has not only not ceased but has constantly aug- 
mented. In my opinion, it will not cease until 
a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A 
house divided against itself cannot stand." I 
believe this government cannot endure perma- 
nently half slave and half free. I do not expect 
the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the 
house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be 
divided. It will become all one thing, or all 
the other. Either the opponents of slavery will 
arrest the further spread of it, and place it where 
the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is 
in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advo- 
cates will push it forward till it shall become 
alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, 
North as well as South. 

Have we no tendency to the latter condition? 

Let any one who doubts carefully contemplate 
that now almost complete legal combination — ■ 
piece of machinery, so to speak — compounded of 
the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott deci- 



coln's life. The majority of his friends thought the sentiments 
nothing short of political suicide. Herndon writes that before 
delivering the oration Lincoln had declared to disapproving 
friends, to whom he had submitted his notes, that "the time 
has come when those sentiments should be uttered and if it is 
decreed that I should go down because of this speech, then let 
me go down linked with the truth — let me die in the advocacy 
of what is just and right." 



18583 Springfield Speech 3 

sion. Let him consider not only what work the 
machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapt- 
ed; but also let him study the history of the con- 
struction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if 
he can, to trace the evidences of design and con- 
cert of action among its chief architects, from 
the beginning. 

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded 
from more than half the States by State consti- 
tutions, and from most of the national territory 
by congressional prohibition. Four days later 
commenced the struggle which ended in repeal- 
ing that congressional prohibition. This opened 
all the national territory to slavery, and was the 
first point gained. 

But, so far, Congress only had acted; and an 
indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was 
indispensable to save the point already gained 
and give chance for more. 

This necessity had not been overlooked, but 
had been provided for, as well as might be, in 
the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," 
otherwise called "sacred right of self-govern- 
ment," which latter phrase, though expressive 
of the only rightful basis of any government, 
was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to 
amount to just this : That if any one man choose 
to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed 
to object. That argument was incorporated into 



4 Abraham Lincoln [June 16 

the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which 
follows: "It being the true intent and meaning 
of this act not to legislate slavery into any Ter- 
ritory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom; but 
to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form 
and regulate their domestic institutions in their 
own way, subject only to the Constitution of the 
United States." Then opened the roar of loose 
declamation in favor of "squatter sovereignty" 
and "sacred right of self-government." "But," 
said opposition members, "let us amend the bill 
so as to expressly declare that the people of the 
Territory may exclude slavery." "Not we," 
said the friends of the measure; and down they 
voted the amendment. 

While the Nebraska bill was passing through 
Congress, a law case involving the question of a 
negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having 
voluntarily taken him first into a free State and 
then into a Territory covered by the congres- 
sional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a 
long time in each, was passing through the 
United States Circuit Court for the District of 
Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and lawsuit 
were brought to a decision in the same month of 
May, 1854. The negro's name was Dred Scott, 
which name now designates the decision finally 
made in the case. Before the then next presi- 
dential election, the law case came to and was 



1858] Springfield Speech 5 

argued in the Supreme Court of the United 
States ; but the decision of it was deferred until 
after the election. Still, before the election, 
Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, 
requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska 
bill to state his opinion whether the people of a 
Territory can constitutionally exclude slavery 
from their limits; and the latter answered: 
"That is a question for the Supreme Court." 

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elect- 
ed, and the indorsement, such as it was secured. ' 
That was the second point gained. The indorse- 
ment, however, fell short of a clear popular ma- 
jority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, 
and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly relia- 
ble and satisfactory. The outgoing President, 
in his last annual message, as impressively as 
possible echoed back upon the people the weight 
and authority of the indorsement. The Supreme 
Court met again; did not announce their deci- 
sion, but ordered a reargument. The presiden- 
tial inauguration came, and still no decision of 
the court; but the incoming President in his in- 
augural address fervently exhorted the people 
to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever 
it might be. Then, in a few days, came the deci- 
sion. 

The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds 
an early occasion to make a speech at this capi- 



6 Abraham Lincoln [June 16 

tal indorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehe- 
mently denouncing all opposition to it. The 
new President, too, seizes the early occasion of 
the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly con- 
strue that decision, and to express his astonish- 
ment that any different view had ever been en- 
tertained! 

At length a squabble springs up between the 
President and the author of the Nebraska bill, 
on the mere question of fact, whether the Le- 
compton constitution was or was not, in any just 
sense, made by the people of Kansas ; and in that 
quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a 
fair vote for the people, and that he cares not 
whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I 
do not understand his declaration that he cares 
not whether slavery be voted down or voted up 
to be intended by him other than as an apt defi- 
nition of the policy he would impress upon the 
public mind — the principle for which he de- 
clares he has suffered so much, and is ready to 
suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that 
principle. If he has any parental feeling, well 
may he cling to it. That principle is the only 
shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. 
Under the Dred Scott decision "squatter sover- 
eignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down 
like temporary scaffolding, — like the mold at 
the foundry, served through one blast and fell' 



1858] Springfield Speech 7 

back into loose sand, — helped to carry an elec- 
tion, and then was kicked to the winds. His 
late joint struggle with the Republicans against 
the Lecompton constitution involves nothing of 
the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle 
was made on a point — the right of a people to 
make their own constitution — upon which he 
and the Republicans have never differed. 

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, 
in connection with Senator Douglas's "care not" 
policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its 
present state of advancement. This was the 
third point gained. The working points of that 
machinery are: 

(1) That no negro slave, imported as such 
from Africa, and no descendant of such slave, 
can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense 
of that term as used in the Constitution of the 
United States. This point is made in order to 
deprive the negro in every possible event of the 
benefit of that provision of the United States 
Constitution which declares that "the citizens of 
each State shall be entitled to all the privileges 
and immunities of citizens in the several States." 

(2) That, "subject to the Constitution of the 
United States," neither Congress nor a territo- 
rial legislature can exclude slavery from any 
United States Territory. This point is made in 
order that individual men may fill up the Ter- 



8 Abraham Lincoln [June 16 

ritories with slaves, without danger of losing 
them as property and thus enhance the chances 
of permanency to the institution through all the 
future. 

(3) That whether the holding a negro in act- 
ual slavery in a free State makes him free as 
against the holder, the United States courts will 
not decide, but will leave to be decided by the 
courts of any slave State the negro may be forced 
into by the master. This point is made not to be 
pressed immediately, but, if acquiesced in for a 
while, and apparently indorsed by the people at 
an election, then to sustain the logical conclu- 
sion that what Dred Scott's master might law- 
fully do with Dred Scott in the free State of 
Illinois, every other master may lawfully do 
with any other one or one thousand slaves in Illi- 
nois or in any other free State. 

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in 
hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is 
left of it, is to educate and mold public opinion, 
at least Northern public opinion, not to care 
whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This 
shows exactly where we now are, and partially, 
also, whither we are tending. 

It will throw additional light on the latter, 
to go back and run the mind over the string of 
historical facts already stated. Several things 
will now appear less dark and mysterious than 



1858] Springfield Speech 9 

they did when they were transpiring. The peo- 
ple were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only 
to the Constitution." What the Constitution 
had to do with it outsiders could not then see. 
Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted 
niche for the Dred Scott decision to afterward 
come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the 
people to be just no freedom at all. Why was 
the amendment expressly declaring the right of 
the people voted down? Plainly enough now, 
the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche 
for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court 
decision held up? Why even a senator's indi- 
vidual opinion withheld till after the presiden- 
tial election? Plainly enough now, the speak- 
ing out then would have damaged the "perfectly 
free" argument upon which the election was to 
be carried. Why the outgoing President's felic- 
itation on the indorsement? Why the delay of 
a reargument? Why the incoming President's 
advance exhortation in favor of the decision? 
These things look like the cautious patting and 
petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mount- 
ing him, when it is dreaded that he may give the 
rider a fall. And why the hasty after-endorse- 
ment of the decision by the President and 
others? 

We cannot absolutely know that all these ex- 
act adaptations are the result of preconcert. But 



io Abraham Lincoln [June 16 

when we see a lot of framed timbers, different 
portions of which we know have been gotten out 
at different times and places and by different 
workmen, — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and 
James, for instance, — and we see these timbers 
joined together, and see they exactly make the 
frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and 
mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and 
proportions of the different pieces exactly adapt- 
ed to their respective places, and not a piece too 
many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding 
— or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the 
place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared 
yet to bring such piece in — in such a case we find 
it impossible not to believe that Stephen and 
Franklin and Roger and James all understood 
one another from the beginning, and all worked 
upon a common plan or draft drawn up before 
the first blow was struck. 

It should not be overlooked that, by the Ne- 
braska bill, the people of a State as well as Ter- 
ritory were to be left "perfectly free," "subject 
only to the Constitution." Why mention a 
State? They were legislating for Territories, 
and not for or about States. Certainly the peo- 
ple of a State are and ought to be subject to the 
Constitution of the United States; but why is 
mention of this lugged into this merely terri- 
torial law? Why are the people of a Territory 



1858] Springfield Speech ri 

and the people of a State therein lumped to- 
gether, and their relation to the Constitution 
therein treated as being precisely the same? 
While the opinion of the court, by Chief Justice 
Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate 
opinions of all the concurring judges, expressly 
declare that the Constitution of the United 
States neither permits Congress nor a territorial 
legislature to exclude slavery from any United 
States Territory, they all omit to declare wheth- 
er or not the same Constitution permits a State, 
or the people of a State, to exclude it. Possibly, 
this is a mere omission; but who can be quite 
sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into 
the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in 
the people of a State to exclude slavery from 
their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to 
get such declaration, in behalf of the people of 
a Territory, into the Nebraska bill — I ask, who 
can be quite sure that it would not have been 
voted down in the one case as it had been in the 
other? The nearest approach to the point of 
declaring the power of a State over slavery is 
made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more 
than once, using the precise idea, and almost the 
language too, of the Nebraska act. On one oc- 
casion his exact language is: "Except in case 
where the power is restrained by the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, the law of the State is 



i2 Abraham Lincoln [June 16 

supreme over the subject of slavery within its 
jurisdiction." In what cases the power of the 
States is so restrained by the United States Con- 
stitution is left an open question, precisely as the 
same question as to the restraint on the power of 
the Territories was left open in the Nebraska 
act. Put this and that together, and we have 
another nice little niche, which we may, ere 
long, see filled with another Supreme Court de- 
cision declaring that the Constitution of the 
United States does not permit a State to exclude 
slavery from its limits. And this may especially 
be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether 
slavery be voted down or voted up" shall gain 
upon the public mind sufficiently to give prom- 
ise that such a decision can be maintained when 
made. 

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks 
of being alike lawful in all the States. Wel- 
come, or unwelcome, such decision is probably 
coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the 
power of the present political dynasty shall be 
met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleas- 
antly dreaming that the people of Missouri are 
on the verge of making their State free, and we 
shall awake to the reality instead that the Su- 
preme Court has made Illinois a slave State. 
To meet and overthrow the power of that dynas- 
ty is the work now before all those who would 



1858] Springfield Speech 13 

prevent that consummation. That is what we 
have to do. How can we best do it? 

There are those who denounce us openly to 
their own friends, and yet whisper us softly that 
Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there 
is with which to effect that object. They wish 
us to infer all from the fact that he now has a 
little quarrel with the present head of the dynas- 
ty; and that he has regularly voted with us on 
a single point upon which he and we have never 
differed. They remind us that he is a great man, 
and that the largest of us are very small ones. 
Let this be granted. But "a living dog is better 
than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if not a dead 
lion for this work, is at least a caged and tooth- 
less one. How can he oppose the advances of 
slavery? He don't care anything about it. His 
avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" 
to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas 
Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas's supe- 
rior talent will be needed to resist the revival of 
the African slave-trade. Does Douglas believe 
an effort to revive that trade is approaching? 
He has not said so. Does he really think so? 
But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he 
has labored to prove it a sacred right of white 
men to take negro slaves into the new Territo- 
ries. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred 
right to buy them where they can be bought 



14 Abraham Lincoln [June 16 

cheapest? And unquestionably they can be 
bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He 
has done all in his power to reduce the whole 
question of slavery to one of a mere right of 
property; and as such, how can he oppose the 
foreign slave-trade? How can he refuse that 
trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly 
free," unless he does it as a protection to the 
home production? And as the home producers 
will probably not ask the protection, he will be 
wholly without a ground of opposition. 

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man 
may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yes- 
terday — that he may rightfully change when he 
finds himself wrong. But can we, for that rea- 
son, run ahead, and infer that he will make any 
particular change of which he, himself, has giv- 
en no intimation? Can we safely base our action 
upon any such vague inference? Now, as ever, 
I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas's po- 
sition, question his motives, or do aught that can 
be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if 
ever, he and we can come together on principle 
so that our great cause may have assistance from 
his great ability, I hope to have interposed no 
adventitious obstacle. But clearly, he is not now 
with us — he does not pretend to be — he does not 
promise ever to be. 

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and con- 



1858] Letter to Spring 15 

ducted by, its own undoubted friends — those 
whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the 
work, who do care for the result. Two years 
ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over 
thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this 
under the single impulse of resistance to a com- 
mon danger, with every external circumstance 
against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hos- 
tile elements, we gathered from the four winds, 
and formed and fought the battle through, un- 
der the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, 
and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then 
to falter now? — now, when that same enemy is 
wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The re- 
sult is not doubtful. We shall not fail — if we 
stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may 
accelerate or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or 
later, the victory is sure to come. 



*Letter to Sydney Spring 

Springfield, June 19, 1858. 
My dear Sir: Your letter introducing Mr. 
Faree was duly received. There was no open- 
ing to nominate him for Superintendent of Pub- 
lic Instruction, but through him, Egypt made a 
most valuable contribution to the convention. 
I think it may be fairly said that he came of! the 
lion of the day — or rather of the night. Can you 



1 6 Abraham Lincoln [June 25 

not elect him to the legislature? It seems to 
me he would be hard to beat. What objection 
could be made to him? What is your Senator 
Martin saying and doing? What is Webb 
about? 
Please write me. Yours truly, 

A. Lincoln. 



Letter to J. W. Somers. 

Springfield, June 25, 1858. 
'My dear Sir: .Yours of the 22d, inclosing a 
draft of two hundred dollars, was duly received. 
I have paid it on the judgment, and herewith 
you have the receipt. I do not wish to say any- 
thing as to who shall be the Republican candi- 
date for the legislature in your district, further 
than that I have full confidence in Dr. Hull. 
Have you ever got in the way of consulting with 
McKinley in political matters? He is true as 
steel, and his judgment is very good. The last 
I heard from him, he rather thought Weldon, of 
DeWitt, was our best timber for representative, 
all things considered. But you there must settle 
it among yourselves. It may well puzzle older 
heads than yours to understand how, as the Dred 
Scott decision holds, Congress can authorize a 
territorial legislature to do everything else, and 
cannot authorize them to prohibit slavery. That 



1858] Letter to Campbell 17 

is one of the things the court can decide, but can 
never give an intelligible reason for. 
Yours very truly, 

A. Lincoln. 



Letter to A. Campbell 

Springfield, June 25, 1858. 
My dear Sir: In 1856 you gave me authority 
to draw on you for any sum not exceeding five 
hundred dollars. I see clearly that such a privi- 
lege would be more available now than it was 
then. I am aware that times are tighter now 
than they were then. Please write me, at all 
events; and whether you can now do anything 
or not, I shall continue grateful for the past. 
Yours very truly, 

A. Lincoln. 

Letter to J. J. Crittenden 

Springfield, July 7, 1858. 
Dear Sir: I beg you will pardon me for the 
liberty in addressing you upon only so limited 
an acquaintance, and that acquaintance so long 
past. I am prompted to do so by a story being 
whispered about here that you are anxious for 
the reelection of Mr. Douglas to the United 
States Senate, and also of Harris, of our district, 
to the House of Representatives, and that you 



1 8 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

are pledged to write letters to that effect to your 
friends here in Illinois, if requested. I do not 
believe the story, but still it gives me some un- 
easiness. If such was your inclination, I do not 
believe you would so express yourself. It is not 
in character with you as I have always estimated 
you. 

You have no warmer friends than here in Illi- 
nois, and I assure you nine tenths — I believe 
ninety-nine hundredths — of them would be mor- 
tified exceedingly by anything of the sort from 
you. When I tell you this, make such allowance 
as you think just for my position, which, I doubt 
not, you understand. Nor am I fishing for a 
letter on the other side. Even if such could be 
had, my judgment is that you would better be 
hands off! 

Please drop me a line; and if your purposes 

are as I hope they are not, please let me know. 

The confirmation would pain me much, but I 

should still continue your friend and admirer. 

Your obedient servant, 

A. Lincoln. 

P. S. I purposely fold this sheet within itself 
instead of an envelop. 



Interior of Lincoln's Log Cabin 

Reproduced fro in an Original Photograph of an 

Interior of the Log Cabin built on Goose Neck 

Prairie, Illinois, in 1831. The Spinning 

Wheel zcas used to spin yarn for 

young Abraham I, inn 

clothing. 



[858] Chicago Speech ^ 



Speech at Chicago, Illinois, July 10, 1858 

MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: On yester- 
day evening, upon the occasion of the 
reception given to Senator Douglas, 
I was furnished with a seat very convenient for 
hearing him, and was otherwise very courteous- 
ly treated by him and his friends, and for which 
I thank him and them. During the course of 
his remarks my name was mentioned in such a 
way as, I suppose, renders it at least not im- 
proper that I should make some sort of reply to 
him. I shall not attempt to follow him in the 
precise order in which he addressed the assem- 
bled multitude upon that occasion, though I 
shall perhaps do so in the main. 

There was one question to which he asked the 
attention of the crowd, which I deem of some- 
what less importance — at least of propriety for 
me to dwell upon — than the others, which he 
brought in near the close of his speech, and 
which I think it would not be entirely proper 
for me to omit attending to; and yet if I were 
not to give some attention to it now, I should 
probably forget it altogether. While I am upon 
this subject, allow me to say that I do not intend 



20 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

to indulge in that inconvenient mode sometimes 
adopted in public speaking, of reading from 
documents ; but I shall depart from that rule so 
far as to read a little scrap from his speech, 
which notices this first topic of which I shall 
speak — that is, provided I can find it in the 
paper. 

I have made up my mind to appeal to the people 
against the combination that has been made against 
me. The Republican leaders have formed an alli- 
ance, an unholy and unnatural alliance, with a por- 
tion of unscrupulous federal office-holders. I in- 
tend to fight that allied army wherever I meet them. 
I know they deny the alliance, but yet these men who 
are trying to divide the Democratic party for the 
purpose of electing a Republican senator in my place, 
are just so much the agents and tools of the support- 
ers of Mr. Lincoln. Hence I shall deal with this 
allied army just as the Russians dealt with the allies 
at Sebastopol — that is, the Russians did not stop to 
inquire, when they fired a broadside, whether it hit 
an Englishman, a Frenchman, or a Turk. Nor will 
I stop to inquire, nor shall I hesitate, whether my 
blows shall hit these Republican leaders or their allies, 
who are holding the federal offices and yet acting in 
concert with them. 

Well, now, gentlemen, is not that very alarm- 
ing? Just to think of it! right at the outset of 
his canvass, I, a poor, kind, amiable, intelligent 



1858] Chicago Speech 21 

gentleman — I am to be slain in this way. Why, 
my friend the judge is not only, as it turns out, 
not a dead lion, nor even a living one — he is the 
rugged Russian bear. 

But if they will have it — for he says that we 
deny it — that there is any such alliance, as he 
says there is, — and I don't propose hanging very 
much upon this question of veracity, — but if he 
will have it that here is such an alliance, that 
the administration men and we are allied, and 
we stand in the attitude of English, French, and 
Turk, he occupying the position of the Russian, 
— in that case I beg he will indulge us while we 
barely suggest to him that these allies took Se- 
bastopol. 

Gentlemen, only a few more words as to this 
alliance. For my part, I have to say that wheth- 
er there be such an alliance depends, so far as I 
know, upon what may be a right definition of 
the term alliance. If for the Republican party 
to see the other great party to which they are 
opposed divided among themselves and not try 
to stop the division, and rather be glad of it, — 
if that is an alliance, I confess I am in; but if it 
is meant to be said that the Republicans had 
formed an alliance going beyond that, by which 
there is contribution of money or sacrifice of 
principle on the one side or the other, so far as 
the Republican party is concerned, if there be 



22 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

any such thing, I protest that I neither know 
anything of it nor do I believe it. I will, how- 
ever, say — as I think this branch of the argu- 
ment is lugged in — I would before I leave it 
state, for the benefit of those concerned, that one 
of those same Buchanan men did once tell me 
of an argument that he made for his opposition 
to Judge Douglas. He said that a friend of our 
Senator Douglas had been talking to him, and 
had among other things said to him: "Why, 
you don't want to beat Douglas?" "Yes," said 
he, "I do want to beat him, and I will tell you 
why. I believe his original Nebraska bill was 
right in the abstract, but it was wrong in the 
time that it was brought forward. It was wrong 
in the application to a Territory in regard to 
which the question had been settled; it was 
brought forward at a time when nobody asked 
him; it was tendered to the South when the 
South had not asked for it, but when they could 
not well refuse it; and for this same reason he 
forced that question upon our party. It has 
sunk the best men all over the nation, every- 
where; and now when our President, struggling 
with the difficulties of this man's getting up, has 
reached the very hardest point to turn in the 
case, he deserts him, and I am for putting him 
where he w r ill trouble us no more." 

Now, gentlemen, that is not my argument — 



1858] Chicago Speech 23 

that is not my argument at all. I have only 
been stating to you the argument of a Buchanan 
man. You will judge if there is any force in it. 
Popular sovereignty! everlasting popular sov- 
ereignty! Let us for a moment inquire into this 
vast matter of popular sovereignty. What is 
popular sovereignty? We recollect that at an 
early period in the history of this struggle, there 
was another name for the same thing — squatter 
sovereignty. It was not exactly popular sov- 
ereignty, but squatter sovereignty. What did 
those terms mean? What do those terms mean 
when used now? And vast credit is taken by 
our friend the judge in regard to his support 
of it, when he declares the last years of his life 
have been, and all the future years of his life 
shall be, devoted to this matter of popular sov- 
ereignty. What is it? Why, it is the sover- 
eignty of the people! What was squatter 
sovereignty? I suppose if it had any signifi- 
cance at all, it was the right of the people to 
govern themselves, to be sovereign in their own 
affairs while they were squatted down in a coun- 
try not their own, while they had squatted on 
a Territory that did not belong to them, in the 
sense that a State belongs to the people who in- 
habit it — when it belonged to the nation — such 
right to govern themselves was called "squatter 
sovereignty." 



24 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

Now I wish you to mark what has become of 
that squatter sovereignty. What has become 
of it? Can you get anybody to tell you now 
that the people of a Territory have any author- 
ity to govern themselves, in regard to this 
mooted question of slavery, before they form a 
State constitution? No such thing at all, al- 
though there is a general running fire, and 
although there has been a hurrah made in every 
speech on that side, assuming that policy had 
given the people of a Territory the right to 
govern themselves upon this question; yet the 
point is dodged. To-day it has been decided 
— no more than a year ago it was decided by the 
Supreme Court of the United States, and is in- 
sisted upon to-day — that the people of a Terri- 
tory have no right to exclude slavery from a 
Territory; that if any one man chooses to take 
slaves into a Territory, all the rest of the people 
have no right to keep them out. This being so, 
and this decision being made one of the points 
that the judge approved, and one in the approval 
of which he says he means to keep me down — 
put me down I should not say, for I have never 
been up; he says he is in favor of it, and sticks 
to it, and expects to win his battle on that decis- 
ion, which says that there is no such thing as 
squatter sovereignty, but that any one man may 
take slaves into a Territory, and all the other 



1858] Chicago Speech 25 

men in the Territory may be opposed to it, and 
yet by reason of the Constitution they cannot 
prohibit it. When that is so, how much is left 
of this vast matter of squatter sovereignty, I 
should like to know? 

When we get back, we get to the point of 
the right of people to make a constitution. 
Kansas was settled, for example, in 1854. 
It was a Territory yet, without having formed 
a constitution, in a very regular way, for 
three years. All this time negro slavery 
could be taken in by any few individuals, 
and by that decision of the Supreme Court, 
which the judge approves, all the rest of the 
people cannot keep it out; but when they 
come to make a constitution they may say they 
will not have slavery. But it is there; they are 
obliged to tolerate it some way, and all ex- 
perience shows it will be so — for they will not 
take the negro slaves and absolutely deprive the 
owners of them. All experience shows this to 
be so. All that space of time that runs from the 
beginning of the settlement of the Territory 
until there is sufficiency of people to make a 
State constitution — all that portion of time pop- 
ular sovereignty is given up. The seal is abso- 
lutely put down upon it by the court decision, 
and Judge Douglas puts his own upon the top of 
that; yet he is appealing to the people to give 



26 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

him vast credit for his devotion to popular sov- 
ereignty. 

Again, when we get to the question of the 
right of the people to form a State constitution 
as they please, to form it with slavery or without 
slavery — if that is anything new, I confess I 
don't know it. Has there ever been a time when 
anybody said that any other than the people of 
a Territory itself should form a constitution? 
What is now in it that Judge Douglas should 
have fought several years of his life, and pledge 
himself to fight all the remaining years of his 
life, for? Can Judge Douglas find anybody on 
earth that said that anybody else should form a 
constitution for a people? [A voice: "Yes."] 
Well, I should like you to name him; I should 
like to know who he was. [Same voice: "John 
Calhoun."] No, sir; I never heard of even 
John Calhoun saying such a thing. He insisted 
on the same principle as Judge Douglas; but his 
mode of applying it, in fact, was wrong. It is 
enough for my purpose to ask this crowd when- 
ever a Republican said anything against it? 
They never said anything against it, but they 
have constantly spoken for it; and whosoever 
will undertake to examine the platform and the 
speeches of responsible men of the party, and 
of irresponsible men, too, if you please, will be 
unable to find one word from anybody in the 



1858] Chicago Speech 27 

Republican ranks opposed to that popular sov- 
ereignty which Judge Douglas thinks he has 
invented. I suppose that Judge Douglas will 
claim in a little while that he is the inventor of 
the idea that the people should govern them- 
selves; that nobody ever thought of such a thing 
until he brought it forward. We do not remem- 
ber that in that old Declaration of Independ- 
ence it is said that "We hold these truths to be 
self-evident, that all men are created equal; that 
they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
inalienable rights; that among these are life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to 
secure these rights, governments are instituted 
among men, deriving their just powers from the 
consent of the governed." There is the origin 
of popular sovereignty. Who, then, shall come 
in at this day and claim that he invented it? 

The Lecompton constitution connects itself 
with this question, for it is in this matter of the 
Lecompton constitution that our friend Judge 
Douglas claims such vast credit. I agree that 
in opposing the Lecompton constitution, so far 
as I can perceive, he was right. I do not deny 
that at all; and, gentlemen, you will readily see 
why I could not deny it, even if I wanted to. 
But I do not wish to; for all the Republicans in 
the nation opposed it, and they would have op- 
posed it just as much without Judge Douglas's 



28 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

aid as with it. They had all taken ground 
against it long before he did. Why, the reason 
that he urges against that constitution I urged 
against him a year before. I have the printed 
speech in my hand. The argument that he 
makes why that constitution should not be 
adopted, that the people were not fairly repre- 
sented nor allowed to vote, I pointed out in a 
speech a year ago, which I hold in my hand 
now, that no fair chance was to be given to the 
people. ["Read it; read it."] I shall not 
waste your time by trying to read it. ["Read it ; 
read it."] Gentlemen, reading from speeches 
is a very tedious business, particularly for an old 
man who has to put on spectacles, and more so 
if the man be so tall that he has to bend over to 
the light. 

A little more now as to this matter of popu- 
lar sovereignty and the Lecompton constitu- 
tion. The Lecompton constitution, as the judge 
tells us, was defeated. The defeat of it was a 
good thing, or it was not. He thinks the defeat 
of it was a good thing, and so do I, and we agree 
in that. Who defeated it? [A voice: "Judge 
Douglas."] Yes, he furnished himself, and if 
you suppose he controlled the other Democrats 
that went with him, he furnished three votes, 
while the Republicans furnished twenty. 

That is what he did to defeat it. In the 



1858] Chicago Speech 29 

House of Representatives he and his friends fur- 
nished some twenty votes, and the Republicans 
furnished ninety odd. Now, who was it that 
did the work? [A voice: "Douglas."] Why, 
yes, Douglas did it? To be sure he did. 

Let us, however, put that proposition another 
way. The Republicans could not have done it 
without Judge Douglas. Could he have done 
it without them? Which could have come the 
nearest to doing it without the other? [A 
voice: "Who killed the bill?" Another voice: 
"Douglas."] Ground was taken against it by 
the Republicans long before Douglas did it. 
The proportion of opposition to that measure 
is about five to one. [A voice : "Why don't they 
come out on it?"] You don't know what you 
are talking about, my friend. I am quite will- 
ing to answer any gentleman in the crowd who 
asks an intelligent question. 

Now, who, in all this country, has ever found 
any of our friends of Judge Douglas's way of 
thinking, and who have acted upon this main 
question, that have ever thought of uttering a 
word in behalf of Judge Trumbull? [A voice: 
"We have."] I defy you to show a printed res- 
olution passed in a Democratic meeting. I take 
it upon myself to defy any man to show a print- 
ed resolution of a Democratic meeting, large or 
small, in favor of Judge Trumbull, or any of 



30 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

the five to one Republicans who beat that bill. 
Everything must be for the Democrats! They 
did everything, and the five to the one that real- 
ly did the thing they snub over, and they do 
not seem to remember that they have an exist- 
ence upon the face of the earth. 

Gentlemen, I fear that I shall become tedious. 
I leave this branch of the subject to take hold of 
another. I take up that part of Judge Dou- 
glas's speech in which he respectfully attended 
to me. 

Judge Douglas made two points upon my re- 
cent speech at Springfield. He says they are 
to be the issues of this campaign. The first one 
of these points he bases upon the language in 
a speech which I delivered at Springfield, 
which I believe I can quote correctly from 
memory. I said there that "we are now far into 
the fifth year since a policy was instituted for 
the avowed object and with the confident prom- 
ise of putting an end to slavery agitation ; under 
the operation of that policy, that agitation has 
not only not ceased, but has constantly augment- 
ed. I believe it will not cease until a crisis shall 
have been reached and passed. *A house divid- 
ed against itself cannot stand.' I believe this 
government cannot endure permanently half 
slave and half free. I do not expect the Union 
to be dissolved" — I am quoting from my speech 



1858] Chicago Speech 31 

— "I do not expect the house to fall, but I do 
expect it will cease to be divided. It will be- 
come all one thing or all the other. Either the 
opponents of slavery will arrest the further 
spread of it, and place it where the public mind 
shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of 
ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push 
it forward until it shall become alike lawful in 
all the States, old as well as new, North as well 
as South." 

That is the paragraph! In this paragraph 
which I have quoted in your hearing, and to 
which I ask the attention of all, Judge Douglas 
thinks he discovers great political heresy. I 
want your attention particularly to what he has 
inferred from it. He says I am in favor of 
making all the States of this Union uniform in 
all their internal regulations; that in all their 
domestic concerns I am in favor of making them 
entirely uniform. He draws this inference 
from the language I have quoted to you. He 
says that I am in favor of making war by the 
North upon the South for the exinction of 
slavery; that I am also in favor of inviting (as 
he expresses it) the South to a war upon the 
North, for the purpose of nationalizing slavery. 
Now, it is singular enough, if you will carefully 
read that passage over, that I did not say that 
I was in favor of anything in it. I only said 



32 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

what I expected would take place. I made a 
prediction only — it may have been a foolish one, 
perhaps. I did not even say that I desired that 
slavery should be put in course of ultimate ex- 
tinction. I do say so now, however, so there 
need be no longer any difficulty about that. It 
may be written down in the great speech. 

Gentlemen, Judge Douglas informed you 
that this speech of mine was probably carefully 
prepared. I admit that it was. I am not mas- 
ter of language; I have not a fine education; I 
am not capable of entering into a disquisition 
upon dialectics, as I believe you call it; but I 
do not believe the language I employed bears 
any such construction as Judge Douglas puts 
upon it. But I don't care about a quibble in 
regard to words. I know what I meant, and 
I will not leave this crowd in doubt, if I can 
explain it to them, what I really meant in the 
use of that paragraph. 

I am not, in the first place, unaware that this 
government has endured eighty-two years half 
slave and half free. I know that. I am toler-" 
ably well acquainted with the history of the 
country, and I know that it has endured eighty- 
two years half slave and half free. I believe — 
and that is what I meant to allude to there — I 
believe it has endured because during all that 
time, until the introduction of the Nebraska 



1858] Chicago Speech 33 

bill, the public mind did rest all the time in the 
belief that slavery was in course of ultimate 
extinction. That was what gave us the rest that 
we had through that period of eighty-two years; 
at least, so I believe. I have always hated sla- 
very, I think, as much as any Abolitionist — I 
have been an old-line Whig — I have always 
hated it, but I have always been quiet about it 
until this new era of the introduction of the Ne- 
braska bill began. I always believed that 
everybody was against it, and that it was in 
course of ultimate extinction. [Pointing to 
Mr. Browning, who stood near by.] Browning 
thought so; the great mass of the nation have 
rested in the belief that slavery was in course of 
ultimate extinction. They had reason so to be- 
lieve. 

The adoption of the Constitution and its at- 
tendant history led the people to believe so, and 
that such was the belief of the framers of the 
Constitution itself. Why did those old men, 
about the time of the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion, decree that slavery should not go into the 
new Territory, where it had not already gone? 
Why declare that within twenty years the Afri- 
can slave-trade, by which slaves are supplied, 
might be cut off by Congress? Why were all 
these acts? I might enumerate more of these 
acts — but enough. What were they but a clear 



34 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

indication that the framers of the Constitution 
intended and expected the ultimate extinction 
of that institution? And now, when I say, — 
as I said in my speech that Judge Douglas has 
quoted from, — when I say that I think the op- 
ponents of slavery will resist the farther spread 
of it, and place it where the public mind shall 
rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate 
extinction, I only mean to say that they will 
place it where the founders of this government 
originally placed it. 

I have said a hundred times, and I have now 
no inclination to take it back, that I believe 
there is no right and ought to be no inclination 
in the people of the free States to enter into the 
slave States and interfere with the question of 
slavery at all. I have said that always; Judge 
Douglas has heard me say it — if not quite a 
hundred times, at least as good as a hundred 
times; and when it is said that I am in favor 
of interfering with slavery where it exists, I 
know it is unwarranted by anything I have ever 
intended, and, as I believe, by anything I have 
ever said. If by any means I have ever used 
language which could fairly be so construed (as, 
however, I believe I never have), I now correct 
it. 

So much, then, for the inference that Judge 
Douglas draws, that I am in favor of setting the 



1858] Chicago Speech 35 

sections at war with one another. I know that 
I never meant any such thing, and I believe 
that no fair mind can infer any such thing from 
anything I have ever said. 

Now in relation to his inference that I am 
in favor of a general consolidation of all the 
local institutions of the various States. I will 
attend to that for a little while, and try to in- 
quire, if I can, how on earth it could be that 
any man could draw such an inference from 
anything I said. I have said very many times 
in Judge Douglas's hearing that no man believ- 
ed more than I in the principle of self-govern- 
ment; that it lies at the bottom of all my ideas 
of just government from beginning to end. I 
have denied that his use of that term applies 
properly. But for the thing itself I deny that 
any man has ever gone ahead of me in his devo- 
tion to the principle, whatever he may have 
done in efficiency in advocating it. I think that 
I have said it in your hearing — that I believe 
each individual is naturally entitled to do as 
he pleases with himself and the fruit of his la- 
bor, so far as it in no wise interferes with any 
other man's rights; that each community, as a 
State, has a right to do exactly as it pleases with 
all the concerns within that State that interfere 
with the right of no other State; and that the 
General Government, upon principle, has no 



36 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

right to interfere with anything other than that 
general class of things that does not concern the 
whole. I have said that at all times. I have 
said as illustrations that I do not believe in the 
right of Illinois to interfere with the cranberry 
laws of Indiana, the oyster laws of Virginia, or 
the liquor laws of Maine. I have said these 
things over and over again, and I repeat them 
here as my sentiments. 

How is it, then, that Judge Douglas infers, 
because I hope to see slavery put where the pub- 
lic mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the 
course of ultimate extinction, that I am in favor 
of Illinois going over and interfering with the 
cranberry laws of Indiana? What can author- 
ize him to draw any such inference? I sup- 
pose there might he one thing that at least en- 
abled him to draw such an inference that would 
not be true with me or many others; that is, be- 
cause he looks upon all this matter of slavery as 
an exceedingly little thing — this matter of keep- 
ing one sixth of the population of the whole na- 
tion in a state of oppression and tyranny un- 
equaled in the world. He looks upon it as be- 
ing an exceedingly little thing, only equal to the 
question of the cranberry laws of Indiana — as 
something having no moral question in it — as 
something on a par with the question of whether 
a man shall pasture his land with cattle or plant 



1858] Chicago Speech 37 

it with tobacco — so little and so small a thing 
that he concludes, if I could desire that any- 
thing should be done to bring about the ulti- 
mate extinction of that little thing, I must be 
in favor of bringing about an amalgamation of 
all the other little things in the Union. Now, 
it so happens — and there, I presume, is the foun- 
dation of this mistake — that the judge thinks 
thus; and it so happens that there is a vast por- 
tion of the American people that do not look 
upon that matter as being this very little thing. 
They look upon it as a vast moral evil ; they can 
prove it as such by the writings of those who 
gave us the blessings of liberty which we enjoy, 
and that they so looked upon it, and not as an 
evil merely confining itself to the States where 
it is situated; and while we agree that, by the 
Constitution we assented to, in the States where 
it exists we have no right to interfere with it, 
because it is in the Constitution, we are by both 
duty and inclination to stick by that Constitu- 
tion in all its letter and spirit from beginning 
to end. 

So much, then, as to my disposition — my wish 
— to have all the State legislatures blotted out, 
and to have one consolidated government, and 
a uniformity of domestic regulations in all the 
States; by which I suppose it is meant, if we 
raise corn here, we must make sugarcane grow 



38 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

here too, and we must make those which grow 
North grow in the South. All this I suppose 
he understands I am in favor of doing. Now, 
so much for all this nonsense — for I must call 
it so. The judge can have no issue with me on 
a question of establishing uniformity in the do- 
mestic regulations of the States. 

A little now on the other point — the Dred 
Scott decision. Another of the issues he says 
that is to be made with me, is upon his devotion 
to the Dred Scott decision, and my opposition 
to it. 

I have expressed heretofore, and I now re- 
peat, my opposition to the Dred Scott decision; 
but I should be allowed to state the nature of 
that opposition, and I ask your indulgence while 
I do so. What is fairly implied by the term 
Judge Douglas has used, "resistance to the de- 
cision"? I do not resist it. If I wanted to 
take Dred Scott from his master, I would be 
interfering with property, and that terrible dif- 
ficulty that Judge Douglas speaks of, of inter- 
fering with property, would arise. But I am 
doing no such thing as that; all that I am doing 
is refusing to obey it as a political rule. If I 
were in Congress, and a vote should come up on 
a question whether slavery should be prohibited 
in a new Territory, in spite of the Dred Scott 
decision, I would vote that it should. 



1858] Chicago Speech 39 

That is what I would do. Judge Douglas 
said last night that before the decision he might 
advance his opinion, and it might be contrary 
to the decision when it was made; but after it 
was made he would abide by it until it was re- 
versed. Just so! We let this property abide 
by the decision, but we will try to reverse that 
decision. We will try to put it where Judge 
Douglas would not object, for he says he will 
obey it until it is reversed. Somebody has to 
reverse that decision, since it is made; and we 
mean to reverse it, and we mean to do it peace- 
ably. 

What are the uses of decisions of courts? 
They have two uses. As rules of property they 
have two uses. First — they decide upon the 
question before the court. They decide in this 
case that Dred Scott is a slave. Nobody resists 
that. Not only that, but they say to everybody 
else that persons standing just as Dred Scott 
stands are as he is. That is, they say that when 
a question comes up upon another person, it 
will be so decided again, unless the court de- 
cides in another way, unless the court overrules 
its decision. Well, we mean to do what we can 
to have the court decide the other way. That 
is one thing we mean to try to do. 

The sacredness that Judge Douglas throws 
around this decision is a degree of sacredness 



4-o Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

that has never been before thrown around any 
other decision. I have never heard of such a 
thing. Why, decisions apparently contrary to 
that decision, or that good lawyers thought were 
contrary to that decision, have been made by 
that very court before. It is the first of its kind ; 
it is an astonisher in legal history. It is a new 
wonder of the world. It is based upon false- 
hood in the main as to the facts, — allegations of 
facts upon which it stands are not facts at all 
in many instances, — and no decision made on 
any question — the first instance of a decision 
made under so many unfavorable circumstances 
— thus placed, has ever been held by the profes- 
sion as law, and it has always needed confirma- 
tion before the lawyers regarded it as settled 
law. But Judge Douglas will have it that all 
hands must take this extraordinary decision, 
made under these extraordinary circumstances, 
and give their vote in Congress in accordance 
with it, y ield to it and _obexJtJ_ n every possib le 
sense. Circumstance s alter _casgs. Do not gen- 
tlemen here remember the case of that same Su- 
preme Court, some twenty-five or thirty years 
ago, deciding that a national bank was consti- 
tutional? I ask if somebody does not remember 
that a national bank was declared to be con- 
stitutional? Such is the truth, whether it be 
remembered or not. The bank charter ran 



1858] Chicago Speech 41 

out, and a recharter was granted by Con- 
gress. That recharter was laid before Gen- 
eral Jackson. It was urged upon him, when 
he denied the constitutionality of the bank, 
that the Supreme Court had decided that 
it was constitutional; and General Jackson 
then said the Supreme Court had no right to 
lay down a rule to gov ern a coordinate branch 
of the government , the members of which had 
sworn to support the Constitution — that each 
member had sworn to support that Constitution 
as he understood it. I will venture here to say 
that I have heard Judge Douglas say that he 
approved of General Jackson for that act. 
What has now become of all his tirade against 
" resistance to the Supreme Cour t"? - _ 

My fellow-citizens, getting back a little, for 
I pass from these points, when Judge Douglas 
makes his threat of annihilation upon the "alli- 
ance," he is cautious to say that that warfare of 
his is to fall upon the leaders of the Republican 
party. Almost every word he utters, and every 
distinction he makes, has its significance. He 
means for the Republicans who do not count 
themselves as leaders to be his friends; he makes 
no fuss over them; it is the leaders that he is 
making war upon. He wants it understood 
that the mass of the Republican party are really 
his friends. It is only the leaders that are do- 



42 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

ing something, that are intolerant, and require 
extermination at his hands. As this is clearly 
and unquestionably the light in which he pre- 
sents that matter, I want to ask your attention, 
addressing myself to Republicans here, that I 
may ask you some questions as to where you, as 
the Republican party, would be placed if you 
sustained Judge Douglas in his present position 
by a reelection? I do not claim, gentlemen, to 
be unselfish; I do not pretend that I would not 
like to go to the United States Senate; I make no 
such hypocritical pretense, but I do say to you 
that in this mighty issue, it is nothing to you— 
nothing to the mass of the people of the nation — 
whether or not Judge Douglas or myself shall 
ever be heard of after this night; it may be a 
trifle to either of us, but in connection with this 
mighty question, upon which hang the destinies 
of the nation, perhaps, it is absolutely nothing. 
But where will you be placed if you reindorse 
Judge Douglas? Don't you know how apt he 
is — how exceedingly anxious he is at all times 
to seize upon anything and everything to per- 
suade you that something he has done you did 
yourselves? Why, he tried to persuade you last 
night that our Illinois legislature instructed him 
to introduce the Nebraska bill. There was no- 
body in that legislature ever thought of such a 
thing; and when he first introduced the bill, he 



1858] Chicago Speech 43 

never thought of it; but still he fights furiously 
for the proposition, and that he did it because 
there was a standing instruction to our senators 
to be always introducing Nebraska bills. He 
tells you he is for the Cincinnati platform; he 
tells you he is for the Dred Scott decision. He 
tells you, not in his speech last night, but sub- 
stantially in a former speech, that he cares not if 
slavery is voted up or down; he tells you the 
struggle on Lecompton is past — it may come up 
again or not, and if it does he stands where he 
stood when in spite of him and his opposition 
you built up the Republican party. If you in- 
dorse him, you tell him you do not care whether 
slavery be voted up or down, and he will close, 
or try to close, your mouths with his declaration 
repeated by the day, the week, the month, and 
the year. I think, in the position in which 
Judge Douglas stood in opposing the Lecomp- 
ton constitution, he was right; he does not know 
that it will return, but if it does we may know 
where to find him, and if it does not we may 
know where to look for him, and that is on 
the Cincinnati platform. Now I could ask the 
Republican party, after all the hard names 
Judge Douglas has called them by, all his re- 
peated charges of their inclination to marry 
with and hug negroes, all his declarations of 
Black Republicanism, — by the way, we are im- 



44 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

proving, the black has got rubbed off, — but with 
all that, if he be indorsed by Republican votes, 
where do you stand? Plainly, you stand ready 
saddled, bridled, and harnessed, and waiting to 
be driven over to the slavery extension camp of 
the nation, — just ready to be driven over, 
tied together in a lot, — to be driven over, 
every man with a rope around his neck, 
that halter being held by Judge Douglas. 
That is the question. If Republican men 
have been in earnest in what they have done, 
I think they had better not do it; but I 
think the Republican party is made up of those 
who, as far as they can peaceably, will oppose 
the extension of slavery, and who will hope for 
its ultimate extinction. If they believe it is 
wrong in grasping up the new lands of the con- 
tinent, and keeping them from the settlement of 
free white laborers, who want the land to bring 
up their families upon; if they are in earnest, 
although they may make a mistake, they will 
grow restless, and the time will come when they 
will come back again and reorganize, if not by 
the same name, at least upon the same princi- 
ples as their party now has. It is better, then, 
to save the work while it is begun. You have 
done the labor; maintain it, keep it. If men 
choose to serve you, go with them; but as you 
have made up your organization upon princi- 



1858] Chicago Speech 45 

pie, stand by it; for, as surely as God reigns over 
you, and has inspired your mind, and given you 
a sense of propriety, and continues to give you 
hope, so surely will you still cling to these ideas, 
and you will at last come back after your wan- 
derings, merely to do your work over again. 

We were often — more than once at least — in 
the course of Judge Douglas's speech last night 
reminded that this government was made for 
white men — that he believed it was made for 
white men. Well, that is putting it into a shape 
in which no one wants to deny it; but the judge 
then goes into his passion for drawing inferences 
that are not warranted. I protest, now and for- 
ever, against that counterfeit logic which pre- 
sumes that because I do not want a negro woman 
for a slave, I do necessarily want her for a wife. 
My understanding is that I need not have her 
for either; but, as God made us separate, we 
can leave one another alone, and do one another 
much good thereby. There are white men 
enough to marry all the white women, and 
enough black men to marry all the black wo- 
men, and in God's name let them be so married. 
The judge regales us with the terrible enormi- 
ties that take place by the mixture of races; that 
the inferior race bears the superior down. 
Why, judge, if we do not let them get together 
in the Territories, they won't mix there. [A 



46 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

voice: "Three cheers for Lincoln!" The cheers 
were given with a hearty good will.] I should 
say at least that that is a self-evident truth. 

Now, it happens that we meet together once 
every year, somewhere about the 4th of July, 
for some reason or other. These 4th of July 
gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you 
will indulge me, I will state what I suppose to 
be some of them. 

We are now a mighty nation: we are thirty, 
or about thirty, millions of people, and we own 
and inhabit about one fifteenth part of the dry 
land of the whole earth. We run our memory 
back over the pages of history for about eighty- 
two years, and we discover that we were then a 
very small people, in point of numbers vastly 
inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less 
extent of country, with vastly less of everything 
we deem desirable among men. We look upon 
the change as exceedingly advantageous to us 
and to our posterity, and we fix upon something 
that happened away back as in some way or 
other being connected with this rise of prosper- 
ity. We find a race of men living in that day 
whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; 
they were iron men; they fought for the prin- 
ciple that they were contending for; and we un- 
derstood that by what they then did it has fol- 
lowed that the degree of prosperity which we 



1858] Chicago Speech 47 

now enjoy has come to us. We hold this an- 
nual celebration to remind ourselves of all the 
good done in this process of time, of how it was 
done and who did it, and how we are historically 
connected with it; and we go from these meet- 
ings in better humor with ourselves — we feel 
more attached the one to the other, and more 
firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In 
every way we are better men, in the age, and 
race, and country in which we live, for these 
celebrations. But after we have done all this, 
we have not yet reached the whole. There is 
something else connected with it. We have, 
besides these men — descended by blood from 
our ancestors — among us, perhaps half our peo- 
ple who are not descendants at all of these men; 
they are men who have come from Europe, — 
German, Irish, French, and Scandinavian, — 
men that have come from Europe themselves, 
or whose ancestors have come hither and set- 
tled here, finding themselves our equal in all 
things. If they look back through this history 
to trace their connection with those days by 
blood, they find they have none; they cannot 
carry themselves back into that glorious epoch 
and make themselves feel that they are part of 
us; but when they look through that old De- 
claration of Independence, they find that those 
old men say that "We hold these truths to be 



48 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

self-evident, that all men are created equal," 
and then they feel that the moral sentiment 
taught in that day evidences their relation to 
those men, that it is the father of all moral prin- 
ciple in them, and that they have a right to 
claim it as though they were blood of the blood, 
and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that 
Declaration, and so they are. That is the elec- 
tric cord in that Declaration that links the 
hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men to- 
gether, that will link those patriotic hearts as 
long as the love of freedom exists in the minds 
of men throughout the world. 

Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring 
things with this idea of "don't care if sla- 
very is voted up or voted down," for sus- 
taining the Dred Scott decision, for hold- 
ing that the Declaration of Independence 
did not mean anything at all, we have 
Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what 
the Declaration of Independence means, and 
we have him saying that the people of America 
are equal to the people of England. Accord- 
ing to his construction, you Germans are not 
connected with it. Now I ask you, in all sober- 
ness, if all these things, if indulged in, if rati- 
fied, if confirmed and indorsed, if taught to 
our children, and repeated to them, do not tend 
to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the coun- 



1858] Chicago Speech 49 

try, and to transform this government into a 
government of some other form? Those argu- 
ments that are made, that the inferior race are 
to be treated with as much allowance as they 
are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be 
done for them as their condition will allow — 
what are these arguments? They are the argu- 
ments that kings have made for enslaving the 
people in all ages of the world. You will find ^ 
that all the arguments in favor of kingcraft were 
of this class; they always bestrode the necks of 
the people — not that they wanted to do it, but 
because the people were better off for being 
ridden. That is their argument, and this argu- 
ment of the judge is the same old serpent that 
says, You work and I eat, you toil and I will en- 
joy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you 
will — whether it come from the mouth of a 
king, an excuse for enslaving the people of his 
country, or from the mouth of men of one race 
as a reason for enslaving the men of another 
race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if 
that course of argumentation that is made for 
the purpose of convincing the public mind that 
we should not care about this should be granted, 
it does not stop with the negro. I should like to 
know — taking this old Declaration of Indepen- 
dence, which declares that all men are equal 
upon principle, and making exceptions to it, — 



50 Abraham Lincoln [July 10 

where will it stop? If one man says it does not 
mean a negro, why not another say it does not 
mean some other man? If that Declaration is 
not the truth, let us get the statute-book in which 
we find it, and tear it out! Who is so bold as to 
do it? If it is not true, let us tear it out [cries 
of "No, no"]. Let us stick to it, then; let us 
stand firmly by it, then. 

It may be argued that there are certain condi- 
tions that make necessities and impose them up- 
on us, and to the extent that a necessity is im- 
posed upon a man, he must submit to it. I 
think that was the condition in which we found 
ourselves when we established this government. 
We had slaves among us; we could not get our 
Constitution unless we permitted them to re- 
main in slavery; we could not secure the good 
we did secure if we grasped for more; but hav- 
ing by necessity submitted to that much, it does 
not destroy the principle that is the charter of 
our liberties. Let that charter stand as our 
standard. 

My friend has said to me that I am a poor 
hand to quote Scripture. I will try it again, 
however. It is said in one of the admonitions 
of our Lord, "Be ye [therefore] perfect even as 
your Father which is in heaven is perfect." 
The Saviour, I suppose, did not expect that any 
human creature could be perfect as the Father 



1858] Chicago Speech 51 

in heaven; but he said, "As your Father in 
heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect." He set 
that up as a standard, and he who did most to- 
ward reaching that standard attained the high- 
est degree of moral perfection. So I say in re- 
lation to the principle that all men are created 
equal, let it be as nearly reached as we can. If 
we cannot give freedom to every creature, let 
us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any 
other creature. Let us then turn this govern- 
ment back into the channel in which the framers 
of the Constitution originally placed it. Let us 
stand firmly by each other. If we do not do so, 
we are tending in the contrary direction that 
our friend Judge Douglas proposes — not inten- 
tionally — working in the traces that tend to 
make this one universal slave nation. He is one 
that runs in that direction, and as such I resist 
him. 

My friends, I have detained you about as long 
as I desired to do, and I have only to say, let 
us discard all this quibbling about this man and 
the other man, this race and that race and the 
other race being inferior, and therefore they 
must be placed in an inferior position. Let us 
discard all these things, and unite as one people 
throughout this land, until we shall once more 
stand up declaring that all men are created 
equal. 



52 Abraham Lincoln [July 16 

My friends, I could not, without launching 
off upon some new topic, which would detain 
you too long, continue to-night. I thank you 
for this most extensive audience that you have 
furnished me to-night. I leave you, hoping 
that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bos- 
oms until there shall no longer be a doubt that 
all men are created free and equal. 

*Letter to Joseph Gillespie 

Springfield, July 16, 1858. 

My dear Sir: I write this to say that from 
the specimens of Douglas Democracy we occas- 
ionally see here from Madison, we learn that 
they are making very confident calculation of 
beating you, and your friends for the lower 
house, in that county. They offer to bet upon 
it. Billings and Job, respectively, have been up 
here, and were each, as I learn, talking largely 
about it. If they do so, it can only be done by 
carrying the Fillmore men of 1856 very differ- 
ently from what they seem to [be] going in the 
other party. Below is the vote of 1856, in your 
district. 

Counties. Bucanan. Fremont. Fillmore. 

Bond 607 153 659 

Madison 1451 11 11 1658 

Montgomery 992 162 686 

3050 1426 3003 



1858] Letter to Gillespie 53 

By this you will see, if you go through the 
calculation, that if they get one-quarter of the 
Fillmore votes, and you three-quarters, they will 
beat you 125 votes. If they get one-fifth, and 
you four-fifths, you beat them 179. In Madi- 
son, alone, if our friends get 1000 of the Fill- 
more votes, and their opponents the remainder, 
658, we win by just two votes. 

This shows the whole field, on the basis of the 
election of 1856. 

Whether, since then, any Buchanan, or Fre- 
monters, have shifted ground, and how the ma- 
jority of new votes will go, you can judge better 
than I. 

Of course, you, on the ground, can better de- 
termine your line of tactics than any one ofT the 
ground; but it behooves you to be wide awake, 
and actively working. 

Don't neglect it; and write me at your first 
leisure. Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



54 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 



*Speech Delivered at Bloomington, III., by 
Senator S. A. Douglas, July 16, 1858 

MR. CHAIRMAN, and fellow-citizens 
of McLean County: To say that I 
am profoundly touched by the hearty 
welcome you have extended me, and by the kind 
and complimentary sentiments you have ex- 
pressed toward me, is but a feeble expression of 
the feelings of my heart. 

I appear before you this evening for the pur- 
pose of vindicating the course which I have felt 
it my duty to pursue in the Senate of the United 
States upon the great public questions which 
have agitated the country since I last addressed 
you. I am aware that my senatorial course has 
been arraigned, not only by political foes, but 
by a few men pretending to belong to the Dem- 
ocratic party, and yet acting in alliance with the 
enemies of that party, for the purpose of elect- 
ing Republicans to Congress in this State, in 
place of the present Democratic delegation. I 
desire your attention whilst I address you, and 
then I will ask your verdict whether I have not 
in all things acted in entire good faith, and hon- 
estly carried out the principles, the professions, 



1858] Bloomington Speech 55 

and the avowals which I made before my con- 
stituents previous to my going to the Senate. 

During the last session of Congress the great 
question of controversy has been the admission 
of Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton 
constitution. I need not inform you that from 
the beginning to the end I took bold, determin- 
ed, and unrelenting ground in opposition to 
that Lecompton constitution. My reason for 
that course is contained in the fact that that in- 
strument was not the act and deed of the peo- 
ple of Kansas, and did not embody their will. 
I hold it to be a fundamental principle in all 
free governments — a principle asserted in the 
Declaration of Independence, and underlying 
the Constitution of the United States, as well as 
the constitution of every State of the Union — 
that every people ought to have the right to 
form, adopt, and ratify the constitution under 
which they are to live. 

When I introduced the Nebraska bill in the 
Senate of the United States, in 1854, I incor- 
porated in it the provision that it was the true 
intent and meaning of the bill, not to legislate 
slavery into any Territory or State, or to ex- 
clude it therefrom, but to leave the people there- 
of perfectly free to form and regulate their own 
domestic institutions in their own way, subject 
only to the Constitution of the United States. 



56 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

In that bill the pledge was distinctly made that 
the people of Kansas should be left not only- 
free, but perfectly free, to form and regulate 
their own domestic institutions to suit them- 
selves; and the question arose, when the Le- 
compton constitution was sent in to Congress, 
and the admission of Kansas not only asked, but 
attempted to be forced under it, whether or not 
that constitution was the free act and deed of 
the people of Kansas? No man pretends that 
it embodied their will. Every man in America 
knows that it was rejected by the people of Kan- 
sas, by a majority of over ten thousand, before 
the attempt was made in Congress to force the 
Territory into the Union under that constitu- 
tion. 

I resisted, therefore, the Lecompton consti- 
tution because it was a violation of the great 
principle of self-government, upon which all 
our institutions rest. I do not wish to mislead 
you, or to leave you in doubt as to the motives 
of my action. I do not oppose the Lecompton 
constitution upon the ground of the slavery 
clause contained in it. I made my speech 
against that instrument before the vote was 
taken on the slavery clause. At the time I made 
it I did not know whether that clause would be 
voted in or out; whether it would be included 
in the constitution, or excluded from it; and it 



1858] Bloomington Speech 57 

made no difference with me what the result of 
the vote was, for the reason that I was contend- 
ing for a principle, under which you have no 
more right to force a free State upon a people 
against their will, than you have to force a slave 
State upon them without their consent. The 
error consisted in attempting to control the free 
action of the people of Kansas in any respect 
whatever. 

It is no argument with me to say that such 
and such a clause of the constitution was no\ pal- 
atable, that you did not like it; it is a matter of 
no consequence whether you in Illinois like any 
clause in the Kansas constitution or not; it is 
not a question for you, but it is a question for the 
people of Kansas. They have the right to make 
a constitution in accordance with their own 
wishes, and if you do not like it, you are not 
bound to go there and live under it. We in 
Illinois have made a constitution to suit our- 
selves, and we think we have a tolerably good 
one; but whether we have or not, it is nobody's 
business but our own. If the people in Ken- 
tucky do not like it, they need not come here to 
live under it; if the people of Indiana are not 
satisfied with it, what matters it to us? We, 
and we alone, have the right to a voice in the 
adoption or rejection. 

Reasoning thus, my friends, my efforts were 



58 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

directed to the vindication of the great princi- 
ple involving the right of the people of each 
State and each Territory to form and regulate 
their own domestic institutions to suit them- 
selves, subject only to the Constitution of our 
common country. I am rejoiced to be enabled 
to say to you that we fought that battle until we 
forced the advocates of the Lecompton instru- 
ment to abandon the attempt of inflicting it up- 
on the people of Kansas, without first giving 
them an opportunity of rejecting it. When we 
compelled them to abandon that effort, they re- 
sorted to a scheme. They agreed to refer the 
constitution back to the people of Kansas, thus 
conceding the correctness of the principle for 
which I had contended, and granting all I had 
desired, provided the mode of that reference 
and the mode of submission to the people had 
been just, fair and equal. 

I did not consider the mode of submission 
provided in what is known as the "English" bill 
a fair submission, and for this simple reason, 
among others: It provided, in effect, that if 
the people of Kansas would accept the Lecomp- 
ton constitution, that they might come in with 
35,000 inhabitants; but that, if they rejected it, 
in order that they might form a constitution 
agreeable to their own feelings, and conforma- 
ble to their own principles, that they should not 



1858] Bloomington Speech 59 

be received into the Union until they had 93,- 
420 inhabitants. In other words, it said to the 
people, if you will come into the Union as a 
slaveholding State, you shall be admitted with 
35,000 inhabitants; but if you insist on being a 
free State, you shall not be admitted until you 
have 93,420. I was not willing to discriminate 
between free States and slave States in this con- 
federacy. I will not put a restriction upon a 
slave State that I would not put upon a free 
State, and I will not permit, if I can prevent it, 
a restriction being put upon a free State which 
is not applied with the same force to the slave- 
holding States. 

Equality among the States is a cardinal and 
fundamental principle in our confederacy, and 
cannot be violated without overturning our sys- 
tem of government. Hence I demanded that 
the free States and the slaveholding States 
should be kept on an exact equality, one with 
the other, as the Constitution of the United 
States had placed them. If the people of Kan- 
sas want a slave-holding State, let them have it; 
and if they want a free State they have a right 
to it; and it is not for the people of Illinois, or 
Missouri, or New York, or Kentucky, to com- 
plain, whatever the decision of the people of 
Kansas may be upon that point. 

But while I was not content with the mode of 



60 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

submission contained in the English bill, and 
while I could not sanction it for the reason that, 
in my opinion, it violated the great principle of 
equality among the different States, yet when it 
became the law of the land, and under it the 
question was referred back to the people of Kan- 
sas for their decision, at an election to be held 
on the first Monday in August next, I bowed in 
deference, because whatever decision the people 
shall make at that election must be final, and 
conclusive of the whole question. If the peo- 
ple of Kansas accept the proposition submitted 
by Congress ; from that moment Kansas will be- 
come a State of the Union, and there is no way 
of keeping her out if you should try. The act 
of admission will become irrepealable; Kansas 
would be a State; and there would be an end of 
the controversy. On the other hand, if at that 
election of the people of Kansas shall reject the 
proposition, as is now generally thought will be 
the case, from that moment the Lecompton con- 
stitution is dead, and again there is an end of 
the controversy. So you see that either way, 
on the 3d of August next, the Lecompton con- 
troversy ceases and terminates forever; and 
a similar question can never arise unless 
some man shall attempt to play the Lecompton 
game over again. But, my fellow-citizens, I am 
well convinced that that game will never be at- 



1858] Bloomington Speech 61 

tempted again; it has been so solemnly and 
thoroughly rebuked during the last session of 
Congress that it will find but few advocates in 
the future. The President of the United States, 
in his annual message, expressly recommends 
that the example of the Minnesota case, wherein 
Congress required the constitution to be sub- 
mitted to the vote of the people for ratification 
or rejection, shall be followed in all future 
cases ; and all we have to do is to sustain as one 
man that recommendation, and the Kansas con- 
troversy can never again arise. 

My friends, I do not desire you to understand 
me as claiming for myself any special merit for 
the course I have pursued on this question. I 
simply did my duty, — a duty enjoined by fidel- 
ity, by honor, by patriotism; a duty which I 
could not have shrunk from, in my opinion, 
without dishonor and faithlessness to my constit- 
uency. Besides, I only did what it was in the 
power of any one man to do. There were 
others, men of eminent ability, men of wide 
reputation, renowned all over America, who led 
the van, and are entitled to the greatest share 
of the credit. Foremost among them all, as he 
was head and shoulders above them all, was 
Kentucky's great and gallant statesman, John J. 
Crittenden. By his course upon this question he 
has shown himself a worthy successor of the 



62 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

immortal Clay, and well may Kentucky be 
proud of him. I will not withhold, either, the 
meed of praise due the Republican party in 
Congress for the course which they pursued. 
In the language of the New York Tribune, they 
came to the Douglas platform, abandoning their 
own, believing that under the peculiar circum- 
stances they would in that mode best subserve 
the interests of the country. 

My friends, when I am battling for a great 
principle, I want aid and support from what- 
ever quarter I can get it, in order to carry out 
that principle. I never hesitate in my course 
when I find those who on all former occasions 
differed from me upon the principle finally 
coming to its support. Nor is it for me to in- 
quire into the motives which animated the Re- 
publican members of Congress in supporting 
the Crittenden-Montgomery bill. It is enough 
for me that in that case they came square up and 
indorsed the great principle of the Kansas-Ne- 
braska bill, which declared that Kansas should 
be received into the Union, with slavery or with- 
out, as its constitution should prescribe. 

I was the more rejoiced at the action of the 
Republicans on that occasion for another rea- 
son. I could not forget, you will not soon for- 
get, how unanimous that party was, in 1854, in 
declaring that never should another slave State 



1858] Bloomington Speech 63 

be admitted into this Union under any circum- 
stances whatever; and yet we find that during 
this last winter they came up and voted to a 
man, declaring that Kansas should come in as 
a State with slavery under the Lecompton con- 
stitution, if her people desired it; and that if 
they did not, they might form a new constitu- 
tion, with slavery or without, just as they pleas- 
ed. I do not question the motive when men do 
a good act; I give them credit for the act; and 
if they will stand by that principle in the future, 
and abandon their heresy of "no more slave 
States even if the people want them," I will then 
give them still more credit. I am afraid, 
though, that they will not stand by it in the 
future. If they do, I will freely forgive them 
all the abuse they heaped upon me in 1854, for 
having advocated and carried out that same 
principle in the Kansas-Nebraska bill. 

Illinois stands proudly forward as a State 
which early took her position in favor of the 
principle of popular sovereignty as applied to 
the Territories of the United States. When the 
Compromise measure of 1850 passed, predicated 
upon that principle, you recollect the excitement 
which prevailed throughout the northern por- 
tion of this State. I vindicated those measures 
then, and defended myself for having voted for 
them, upon the ground that they embodied the 



64 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

principle that every people ought to have the 
privilege of forming and regulating their own 
institutions to suit themselves; that each State 
had that right, and I saw no reason why it 
should not be extended to the Territories. 
When the people of Illinois had an opportunity 
of passing judgment upon those measures, they 
indorsed them by a vote of their representatives 
in the legislature, — sixty-one in the affirmative, 
and only four in the negative, — in which they 
asserted that the principle embodied in the 
measures was the birthright of freemen; the gift 
of Heaven; a principle vindicated by our revo- 
lutionary fathers; and that no limitation should 
ever be placed upon it, either in the organiza- 
tion of a Territorial government or the admis- 
sion of a State into the Union. 

That resolution will stand unrepealed on the 
journals of the legislature of Illinois. In obe- 
dience to it, and in exact conformity with the 
principle, I brought in the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill, requiring that the people should be left 
perfectly free in the formation of their institu- 
tions and in the organization of their govern- 
ment. I now submit to you whether I have not 
in good faith redeemed that pledge, that the 
people of Kansas should be left perfectly free to 
form and regulate their institutions to suit them- 
selves. And yet, while no man can arise in any 



1 858J Bloomington Speech 65 

crowd and deny that I have been faithful to my 
principles and redeemed my pledge, we find 
those who are struggling to crush and defeat 
me, for the very reason that I have been faith- 
ful in carrying out those measures. We find the 
Republican leaders forming an alliance with 
professed Lecompton men to defeat every Dem- 
ocratic nominee and elect Republicans in their 
places, and aiding and defending them in order 
to help them break down Anti-Lecompton men, 
whom they acknowledge did right in their op- 
position to Lecompton. The only hope that 
Mr. Lincoln has of defeating me for the Senate 
rests in the fact that I was faithful to my prin- 
ciples, and that he may be able in consequence 
of that fact to form a coalition with Lecompton 
men who wish to defeat me for that fidelity. 

This is one element of strength upon which 
he relies to accomplish his object. He hopes he 
can secure the few men claiming to be friends of 
the Lecompton constitution, and for that reason 
you will find he does not say a word against the 
Lecompton constitution or its supporters. He 
is as silent as the grave upon that subject. Be- 
hold Mr. Lincoln courting Lecompton votes, in 
order that he may go to the Senate as the repre- 
sentative of Republican principles! You know 
that the alliance exists. I think you will find 
that it will ooze out before the contest is over. 



66 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

Every Republican paper takes ground with 
my Lecompton enemies, encouraging them, 
stimulating them in their opposition to me, and 
styling my friends bolters from the Democratic 
party, and their Lecompton allies the true Dem- 
ocratic party of the country. If they think that 
they can mislead and deceive the people of Illi- 
nois, or the Democracy of Illinois, by that sor 
of an unnatural and unholy alliance, I think the> 
show very little sagacity, or give the people very 
little credit for intelligence. It must be a con- 
test of principle. Either the radical Abolition 
principles of Mr. Lincoln must be maintained, 
or the strong, constitutional, national Dem- 
ocratic principles with which I am identified 
must be carried out. 

There can be but two great political parties 
in this country. The contest this year and in 
i860 must necessarily be between the Democracy 
and the Republicans, if we can judge from pres- 
ent indications. My whole life has been iden- 
tified with the Democratic party. I have 
devoted all of my energies to advocating its 
principles and sustaining its organization. In 
this State the party was never better united or 
more harmonious than at this time. The State 
convention which assembled on the 2d of April, 
and nominated Fondey and French, was regu- 
larly called by the State central committee, ap- 



1858] Bloomington Speech 67 

pointed by the previous State convention for 
that purpose. The meetings in each county in 
the State for the appointment of delegates to the 
convention were regularly called by the county 
committees, and the proceedings in every county 
in the State, as well as in the State convention, 
jwere regular in all respects. No convention 
'was ever more harmonious in its action, or 
showed a more tolerant and just spirit toward 
brother Democrats. The leaders of the party 
there assembled, declared their unalterable at- 
tachment to the time-honored principles and 
organization of the Democratic party, and to 
the Cincinnati platform. They declared that 
that platform was the only authoritative exposi- 
tion of Democratic principles, and that it must 
so stand until changed by another national con- 
vention; that in the mean time they would make 
no new tests, and submit to none; that they 
would proscribe no Democrat, nor permit the 
proscription of Democrats because of their opin- 
ion upon Lecomptonism, or upon any other issue 
which has arisen, but would recognize all men 
as Democrats who remained inside of the organ- 
ization, preserved the usages of the party, and 
supported its nominees. 

These bolting Democrats who now claim to 
be the peculiar friends of the national adminis- 
tration, and have formed an alliance with Mr. 



68 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

Lincoln and the Republicans for the purpose 
of defeating the Democratic party, have ceased 
to claim fellowship with the Democratic organi- 
zation; have entirely separated themselves from 
it; and are endeavoring to build up a faction in 
the State, not with the hope of expectation of 
electing any one man who professes to be a 
Democrat to office in any county in the State, but 
merely to secure the defeat of the Democratic 
nominees, and the election of Republicans in 
their places. What excuse can any honest Dem- 
ocrat have for abandoning the Democratic or- 
ganization and joining with the Republicans 
to defeat our nominees, in view of the platform 
established by the State convention? They can- 
not pretend that they were proscribed because 
of their opinions upon Lecompton or any other 
question, for the convention expressly declared 
that they recognized all as good Democrats who 
remained inside of the organization and abided 
by the nominations. If the question is settled or 
is to be considered as finally disposed of by the 
vote on the 3d of August, what possible excuse 
can any good Democrat make for keeping up a 
division for the purpose of prostrating his party, 
after that election is over and the controversy 
has terminated? It is evident that all who shall 
keep up this warfare for the purpose of dividing 
and destroying the party have made up their 



1858] Bloomington Speech 69 

minds to abandon the Democratic organization 
forever, and to join those for whose benefit they 
are now trying to distract our party, and elect 
Republicans in the place of the Democratic 
nominees. 

I submit the question to you whether I have 
been right or wrong in the course I have pur- 
sued in Congress. And I submit, also, whether 
I have not redeemed in good faith every pledge 
I have made to you. Then, my friends, the 
question recurs, whether I shall be sustained or 
rejected? If you are of opinion that Mr. Lin- 
coln will advance the interests of Illinois better 
than I can; that he will sustain her honor and 
her dignity higher than it has been in my power 
to do; that your interests and the interests of 
your children require his election instead of 
mine; it is your duty to give him your support. 
If, on the contrary, you think that my adherence 
to these great fundamental principles upon 
which our government is founded is the true 
mode of sustaining the peace and harmony of 
the country, and maintaining the perpetuity of 
the Republic, I then ask you to stand by me in 
the efforts I have made to that end. 

And this brings me to the consideration of the 
two points at issue between Mr. Lincoln and 
myself. The Republican convention, when it 
assembled at Springfield, did me and the coun- 



70 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

try the honor of indicating the man who was 
to be their standard-bearer, and the embodiment 
of their principles, in this State. I owe them 
my gratitude for thus making up a direct issue 
between Mr. Lincoln and myself. I shall have 
no controversies of a personal character with 
Mr. Lincoln. I have known him well for a 
quarter of a century. I have known him, as you 
all know him, a kind-hearted, amiable gentle- 
man, a right good fellow, a worthy citizen, of 
eminent ability as a lawyer, and, I have no 
doubt, sufficient ability to make a good senator. 
The question, then, for you to decide is, whether 
his principles are more in accordance with the 
genius of our free institutions, the peace and 
harmony of the Republic, than those which I 
advocate. He tells you, in his speech made at 
Springfield, before the convention which gave 
him his unanimous nomination, that, — 

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." 
"I believe this government cannot endure 
permanently, half Slave and half Free." 

"I do not expect the Union to be dissolved, I 
don't expect the house to fall; but I do expect 
it will cease to be divided." 

"It will become all one thing or all the other." 

That is the fundamental principle upon which 

he sets out in this campaign. Well, I do not 

suppose you will believe one word of it when 



1858] Bloomington Speech 71 

you come to examine it carefully, and see its 
consequences: Although the Republic has ex- 
isted from 1789 to this day, divided into free 
States and slave States, yet we are told that in 
the future it cannot endure unless they shall be- 
come all free or all slave. [A voice, "All 
free."] For that reason he says, as the gentle- 
man in the crowd says, that they must be all 
free. He wishes to go to the Senate of the 
United States in order to carry out that line of 
public policy, which will compel all the States 
in the South to become free. 

How is he going to do it? Has Congress any 
power over the subject of slavery in Kentucky, 
or Virginia, or any other State of this Union? 
How, then, is Mr. Lincoln going to carry out 
that principle which he says is essential to the 
existence of this Union, to-wit: That slavery 
must be abolished in all the States of the Union, 
or must be established in them all? You con- 
vince the South that they must either establish 
slavery in Illinois, and in every other free State, 
or submit to its abolition in every Southern 
State, and you invite them to make a warfare 
upon the Northern States in order to establish 
slavery, for the sake of perpetuating it at home. 
Thus, Mr. Lincoln invites, by his proposition, a 
war of sections, a war between Illinois and Ken- 
tucky, a war between the free States and the 



72 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

slave States, a war between the North and the 
South, for the purpose of either exterminating 
slavery in every Southern State, or planting it in 
every Northern State. He tells you that the 
safety of this Republic, that the existence of this 
Union, depends upon that warfare being carried 
on until one section or the other shall be entirely 
subdued. 

The States must all be free or slave, for a 
house divided against itself cannot stand. That 
is Mr. Lincoln's argument upon that question. 
My friends, is it possible to preserve peace be- 
tween the North and the South if such a doc- 
trine shall prevail in either section of the Union? 
Will you ever submit to a warfare waged by the 
Southern States to establish slavery in Illinois? 
What man in Illinois would not lose the last 
drop of his heart's blood before he would sub- 
mit to the institution of slavery being forced 
upon us by the other States, against our will? 
And if that be true of us, what Southern man 
would not shed the last drop of his heart's blood 
to prevent Illinois or any other Northern State, 
from interfering to abolish slavery in his State? 
Each of these States is sovereign under the Con- 
stitution; and if we wish to preserve our liber- 
ties, the reserved rights and sovereignty of each 
and every State must be maintained. 

I have said on a former occasion, and here I 



1858] Bloomington Speech 73 

repeat, that it is neither desirable nor possible 
to establish uniformity in the local and domestic 
institutions of all the States of this confederacy. 
And why? Because the Constitution of the 
United States rests upon the right of every State 
to decide all its local and domestic institutions 
for itself. It is not possible, therefore, to make 
them conform to each other; unless we subvert 
the Constitution of the United States. No, sir, 
that cannot be done. God forbid that any man 
should ever make the attempt. Let that Con- 
stitution ever be trodden under foot and de- 
stroyed, and there will not be wisdom and 
patriotism enough left to make another that will 
work half so well. Our safety, our liberty, de- 
pends upon preserving the Constitution of the 
United States as our fathers made it, inviolate, 
at the same time maintaining the reserved rights 
and the sovereignty of each State over its local 
and domestic institutions, against Federal au- 
thority, or any outside interference. 

The difference between Mr. Lincoln and my- 
self upon this point is, that he goes for a com- 
bination of the Northern States, or the organi- 
zation of a sectional political party in the free 
States, to make war on the domestic institutions 
of the Southern States, and to prosecute that 
war until they shall all be subdued, and made 
to conform to such rules as the North shall die- 



74 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

tate to them. I am aware that Mr. Lincoln, on 
Saturday night last, made a speech at Chicago 
for the purpose, as he said, of explaining his 
position on this question. I have read that 
speech with great care, and will do him the jus- 
tice to say that it is marked by eminent ability, 
and great success in concealing what he did 
mean to say in his Springfield speech. His 
answer to this point, which I have been arguing, 
is, that he never did mean, and that I ought to 
know that he never intended to convey the idea, 
that he wished the "people of the free States to 
enter into the Southern States and interfere with 
slavery." 

Well, I never did suppose that he ever 
dreamed of entering into Kentucky to make war 
upon her institutions; nor will any Abolitionist 
ever enter into Kentucky to wage such war. 
Their mode of making war is not to enter into 
those States where slavery exists, and there in- 
terfere, and render themselves responsible for 
the consequences. Oh, no! They stand on this 
side of the Ohio River and shoot across. They 
stand in Bloomington, and shake their fists at 
the people of Lexington; they threaten South 
Carolina from Chicago. And they call that 
bravery! But they are very particular, as Mr. 
Lincoln says, not to enter into those States for 
the purpose of interfering with the institution 



1858] Bloomington Speech 75 

of slavery there. I am not only opposed to 
entering into the slave States, for the purpose of 
interfering with their institutions, but I am op- 
posed to a sectional agitation to control the in- 
stitutions of other States. I am opposed to or- 
ganizing a sectional party, which appeals to 
Northern pride, and Northern passion and pre- 
judice, against Southern institutions, thus stir- 
ring up ill-feeling and hot blood between breth- 
ren of the same Republic. I am opposed to that 
whole system of sectional agitation, which can 
produce nothing but strife, but discord, but hos- 
tility, and, finally, disunion. 

And yet Mr. Lincoln asks you to send him to 
the Senate of the United States, in order that 
he may carry out that great principle of his, that 
all the States must be slave, or all must be free. 
I repeat, How is he to carry it out when he gets 
to the Senate? Does he intend to introduce a 
bill to abolish slavery in Kentucky? Does he 
intend to introduce a bill to interfere with slav- 
ery in Virginia? How is he to accomplish, 
what he professes must be done in order to save 
the Union? Mr. Lincoln is a lawyer, sagacious 
and able enough to tell you how he proposes to 
do it. I ask Mr. Lincoln how it is that he pro- 
poses ultimately to bring about this uniformity 
in each and all the States of the Union. There 
is but one possible mode which I can see, and 



76 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

perhaps Mr. Lincoln intends to pursue it; that 
is, to introduce a proposition into the Senate to 
change the Constitution of the United States, in 
order that all the State legislatures may be abol- 
ished, State sovereignty blotted out, and the 
power conferred upon Congress to make local 
laws and establish the domestic institutions and 
police regulations uniformly throughout the 
United States. Are you prepared for such a 
change in the institutions of your country? 

Whenever you shall have blotted out the State 
sovereignties, abolished the State legislatures, 
and consolidated all the power in the Federal 
Government, you will have established a con- 
solidated empire as destructive to the liberties 
of the people and the rights of the citizen as that 
of Austria, or Russia, or any other despotism 
that rests upon the necks of the people. How is 
it possible for Mr. Lincoln to carry out his cher- 
ished principle of abolishing slavery everywhere 
or establishing it everywhere, except by the 
mode which I have pointed out, — by an amend- 
ment to the Constitution to the effect that I have 
suggested? There is no other possible mode. 
Mr. Lincoln intends resorting to that, or else 
he means nothing by the great principle upon 
which he desires to be elected. My friends, I 
trust that we will be able to get him to define 
what he does mean by this scriptural quotation 



1858] Bloomington Speech 77 

that "A house divided against itself cannot 
stand;" that the government cannot endure per- 
manently, half slave and half free; that it must 
be all one thing, or all the other. Who among 
you expects to live, or have his children live, 
until slavery shall be established in Illinois or 
abolished in South Carolina? Who expects to 
see that occur during the lifetime of ourselves 
or our children? 

There is but one possible way in which slav- 
ery can be abolished, and that is by leaving a 
State, according to the principle of the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill, perfectly free to form and regu- 
late its institutions in its own way. That was 
the principle upon which this republic was 
founded, and it is under the operation of that 
principle that we have been able to preserve the 
Union thus far. Under its operations, slavery 
disappeared from New Hampshire, from Rhode 
Island, from Connecticut, from New York, 
from New Jersey, from Pennsylvania, from six 
of the twelve original slaveholding States; and 
this gradual system of emancipation went on 
quietly, peacefully, and steadily, so long as we 
in the free States minded our own business and 
left our neighbors alone. But the moment the 
Abolition societies were organized throughout 
the North, preaching a violent crusade against 
slavery in the Southern States, this combination 



78 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

necessarily caused a counter-combination in the 
South, and a sectional line was drawn which was 
a barrier to any further emancipation. 

Bear in mind that emancipation has not taken 
place in any one State since the Free-soil party 
was organized as a political party in this coun- 
try. Emancipation went on gradually in State 
after State so long as the free States were con- 
tent with managing their own affairs and leav- 
ing the South perfectly free to do as they 
pleased; but the moment the North said, We 
are powerful enough to control you of the 
South; the moment the North proclaimed itself 
the determined master of the South; that mo- 
ment the South combined to resist the attack, 
and thus sectional parties were formed, and 
gradual emancipation ceased in all the Northern 
slaveholding States. And yet Mr. Lincoln, 
in view of these historical facts, proposes to keep 
up this sectional agitation; band all the North- 
ern States together in one political party; elect 
a president by Northern votes alone; and then, 
of course, make a cabinet composed of North- 
ern men, and administer the government by 
Northern men only, denying all the Southern 
States of this Union any participation in the 
administration of affairs whatsoever. 

I submit to you, my fellow-citizens, whether 
such a line of policy is consistent with the peace 



1858] Bloomington Speech 79 

and harmony of the country? Can the Union 
endure under such a system of policy? He has 
taken his position in favor of sectional agitation 
and sectional warfare. I have taken mine in 
favor of securing peace, harmony, and good-will 
among all the States, by permitting each to mind 
its own business, and discountenancing any at- 
tempt at interference on the part of one State 
with the domestic concerns of the others. 

Mr. Lincoln makes another issue with me, 
and he wishes to confine the contest to these two 
issues. I accept the other as readily as the one 
to which I have already referred. The other 
issue is a crusade against the Supreme Court of 
the United States, because of its decision in the 
Dred Scott case. My fellow-citizens, I have no 
issue to make with the Supreme Court. I have 
no crusade to preach against that august body. 
I have no warfare to make upon it. I receive 
the decision of the judges of that Court, when 
pronounced, as the final adjudication upon all 
questions within their jurisdiction. It would 
be perfectly legitimate and proper for Mr. Lin- 
coln, myself, or any other lawyer, to go before 
the Supreme Court and argue any question that 
might arise there, taking either side of it, and 
enforcing it with all our ability, zeal, and en- 
ergy; but when the decision is pronounced, that 
decision becomes the law of the land, and he. 



80 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

and you, and myself, and every other good citi- 
zen, must bow to it, and yield obedience to it. 
Unless we respect and bow in deference to the 
final decisions of the highest judicial tribunal 
in our country, we are driven at once to anarchy, 
to violence, to mob law, and there is no security 
left for our property or our civil rights. What 
protects your property but the law, and who ex- 
pounds the law but the judicial tribunals; and 
if an appeal is to be taken from the decisions 
of the Supreme Court of the United States in all 
cases where a person does not like the adjudica- 
tion, to whom is that appeal to be taken? Are 
we to appeal from the Supreme Court to a coun- 
ty-meeting like this? And shall we here re- 
argue the question and reverse the decision? If 
so, how are we to enforce our decrees after we 
have pronounced them? Does Mr. Lincoln in- 
tend to appeal from the decision of the Supreme 
Court to a Republican caucus, or a town meet- 
ing? To whom is he going to appeal? ["To 
Lovejoy," and shouts of laughter.] Why, if I 
understand aright, Lincoln and Lovejoy are co- 
appellants in a joint suit, and inasmuch as they 
are so, he would not certainly appeal from the 
Supreme Court to his own partner to decide the 
case for him. 

Mr. Lincoln tells you that he is opposed to 
the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred 



1858] Bloomington Speech 81 

Scott case. Well, suppose he is; what is he 
going to do about it? I never got beat in a law 
suit in my life that I was not opposed to the 
decision; and if I had it before the Circuit 
Court I took it up to the Supreme Court, where, 
if I got beat again, I thought it better to say no 
more about it, as I did not know of any lawful 
mode of reversing the decision of the highest 
tribunal on earth. 

To whom is Mr. Lincoln going to appeal? 
Why, he says he is going to appeal to Congress. 
Let us see how he will appeal to Congress. He 
tells us that on the 8th of March, 1820, Congress 
passed a law called the Missouri Compromise, 
prohibiting slavery forever in all the territory 
west of the Mississippi and north of the Mis- 
souri line of thirty-six degrees and thirty min- 
utes; that Dred Scott, a slave in Missouri, was 
taken by his master to Fort Snelling, in the 
present State of Minnesota, situated on the west 
branch of the Mississippi River, and conse- 
quently in the Territory where slavery was pro- 
hibited by the Act of 1820; and that when Dred 
Scott appealed for his freedom in consequence 
of having been taken into a free Territory, the 
Supreme Court of the United States decided 
that Dred Scott did not become free by being 
taken into that Territory, but that having been 
carried back to Misseuri, was yet a slave. Mr. 



82 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

Lincoln is going to appeal from that decision 
and reverse it. He does not intend to reverse 
it as to Dred Scott. Oh, no! But he will re- 
verse it so that it shall not stand as a rule in the 
future. 

How will he do it? He says that if he is 
elected to the Senate, he will introduce and pass 
a law just like the Missouri Compromise, pro- 
hibiting slavery again in all the Territories. 
Suppose he does re-enact the same law which the 
Court has pronounced unconstitutional, will 
that make it constitutional? If the Act of 1820 
was unconstitutional in consequence of Congress 
having no power to pass it, will Mr. Lincoln 
make it constitutional by passing it again? 
What clause of the Constitution of the United 
States provides for an appeal from the decision 
of the Supreme Court to Congress? If my 
reading of that instrument is correct, it is to the 
effect that that Constitution and all laws made 
in pursuance of it are the supreme law of the 
land; anything in the Constitution or laws of 
a State to the contrary notwithstanding. Hence, 
you will find that only such Acts of Congress 
are laws as are made in pursuance of the Con- 
stitution. 

When Congress has passed an Act, and put 
it on the statute book as law, who is to decide 



1858] Bloomington Speech 83 

whether that Act is in conformity with the Con- 
stitution or not? 

The Constitution of the United States tells 
you. It has provided that the judicial power of 
the United States shall be vested in a Supreme 
Court, and such inferior courts as Congress may 
from time to time ordain and establish. Thus, 
by the Constitution, the Supreme Court is de- 
clared, in so many words, to be the tribunal, and 
the only tribunal, which is competent to adju- 
dicate upon the constitutionality of an Act of 
Congress. He tells you that that Court has ad- 
judicated the question, and decided that an Act 
of Congress prohibiting slavery in the Territory 
is unconstitutional and void; and yet he says he 
is going to pass another like it. What for? Will 
it be any more valid? Will he be able to con- 
vince the Court that the second Act is valid when 
the first is invalid and void? What good does 
it do to pass a second Act? Why, it will have 
the effect to arraign the Supreme Court before 
the people, and to bring them into all the politi- 
cal discussions of the country. Will that do any 
good? Will it inspire any more confidence in 
the judicial tribunals of the country? 

What good can it do to wage this war upon 
the Court, arraying it against Congress, and 
Congress against the Court? The Constitution 
of the United States has said that this Govern- 



84 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

ment shall be divided into three seperate and 
distinct branches, — the Executive, the Legisla- 
tive, and the Judicial; and of course each one is 
supreme and independent of the other within the 
circle of its own powers. The functions of Con- 
gress are to enact the statutes, the province of 
the Court is to pronounce upon their validity, 
and the duty of the Executive is to carry the de- 
cision into effect when rendered by the Court. 
And yet, notwithstanding the Constitution makes 
the decision of the Court final in regard to the 
validity of an Act of Congress, Mr. Lincoln is 
going to reverse that decision by passing another 
Act of Congress. 

When he has become convinced of the folly of 
the proposition, perhaps he will resort to the 
same subterfuge that I have found others of his 
party resort to, which is to agitate and agitate 
until he can change the Supreme Court and put 
other men in the places of the present incum- 
bents. I wonder whether Mr. Lincoln is right 
sure that he can accomplish that reform. He 
certainly will not be able to get rid of the present 
judges until they die, and from present appear- 
ances I think they have as good security of life 
as he has himself. I am afraid that my friend 
Lincoln would not accomplish this task during 
his own lifetime, and yet he wants to go to Con- 
gress to do it all in six years. Do you think that 



1858] Bloomington Speech 85 

he can persuade nine judges, or a majority of 
them, to die in that six years, just to accommo- 
date him? They are appointed judges for life, 
and according to the present organization, new 
ones cannot be appointed during that time; but 
he is going to agitate until they die, and then 
have the president appoint good Republicans 
in their places. He had better be quite sure 
that he gets a Republican president at the same 
time to appoint them. He wants to have a Re- 
publican president elected by Northern votes, 
not a Southern man participating, and elected 
for the purpose of placing none but Republicans 
on the bench; and, consequently, if he succeeds 
in electing that president, and succeeds in per- 
suading the present judges to die, in order that 
their vacancies may be filled, that the president 
will then appoint their successors. And by 
what process will he appoint them? He first 
looks for a man who has the legal qualifications, 
perhaps he takes Mr. Lincoln, and says, "Mr. 
Lincoln, would you like to go on the Supreme 
bench?" "Yes," replies Mr. Lincoln. "Well," 
returns the Republican president, "I cannot ap- 
point you until you give me a pledge as to how 
you will decide in the event of a particular ques- 
tion coming before you." What would you 
think of Mr. Lincoln if he would consent to 
give that pledge? And yet he is going to prose- 



86 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

cute a war until he gets the present judges out, 
and then catechise each man and require a 
pledge before his appointment as to how he will 
decide each question that may arise upon points 
affecting the Republican party. 

Now, my friends, suppose this scheme was 
practical, I ask you what confidence you would 
have in a court thus constituted, — a court com- 
posed of partisan judges, appointed on political 
grounds, selected with a view to the decision of 
questions in a particular way, and pledged in 
regard to a decision before the argument, and 
without reference to the peculiar state of the 
facts. Would such a court command the re- 
spect of the country? If the Republican party 
cannot trust Democratic judges, how can they 
expect us to trust Republican judges, when they 
have been selected in advance for the purpose of 
packing a decision in the event of a case arising? 
My fellow-citizens, whenever partisan politics 
shall be carried on to the bench; whenever the 
judges shall be arraigned upon the stump, and 
their judicial conduct reviewed in town meet- 
ings and caucuses; whenever the independence 
and integrity of the judiciary shall be tampered 
with to the extent of rendering them partial, 
blind, and suppliant tools, what security will 
you have for your rights and your liberties? I 
therefore take issue with Mr. Lincoln directly 



1858] Bloomington Speech 87 

in regard to this warfare upon the Supreme 
Court of the United States. I accept the decis- 
ion of that Court as it was pronounced. What- 
ever my individual opinions may be, I, as a good 
citizen, am bound by the laws of the land, as the 
legislature makes them, as the Court expounds 
them, and as the executive officers administer 
them. I am bound by our Constitution as our 
fathers made it, and as it is our duty to support 
it.. I am bound as a good citizen, to sustain the 
constituted authorities, and to resist, discourage, 
and beat down, by all lawful and peaceful 
means, all attempts at exciting mobs, or violence, 
or any other revolutionary proceedings against 
the Constitution and the constituted authorities 
of the country. 

Mr. Lincoln is alarmed for fear that, under 
the Dred Scott decision, slavery will go into all 
the Territories of the United States. All I have 
to say is that, with or without that decision, slav- 
ery will go just where the people want it, and 
not one inch further. You have had experience 
upon that subject in the case of Kansas. You 
have been told by the Republican party that, 
from 1854, when the Kansas-Nebraska bill 
passed, down to last winter, that slavery was 
sustained and supported in Kansas by the laws 
of what they called a "bogus" legislature. And 
how many slaves were there in the Territory at 



88 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

the end of last winter? Not as many at the end 
of that period as there were on the day the 
Kansas-Nebraska bill passed. There was quite 
a number of slaves in Kansas, taken there under 
the Missouri Compromise, and in spite of it, be- 
fore the Kansas-Nebraska bill passed; and now 
it is asserted that there are not as many there as 
there were before the passage of the bill, not- 
withstanding that they had local laws sustaining 
and encouraging it, enacted, as the Republicans 
say, by a "bogus" legislature, imposed upon 
Kansas by an invasion from Missouri. Why 
has not slavery obtained a foothold in Kansas 
under these circumstances? Simply because 
there was a majority of her people opposed to 
slavery, and every slaveholder knew that if he 
took his slaves there, the moment that majority 
got possession of the ballot-boxes, and a fair 
election was held, that moment slavery would 
be abolished, and he would lose them. For that 
reason, such owners as took their slaves there, 
brought them back to Missouri, fearing that if 
they remained there they would be emancipated. 
Thus you see that under the principle of popu- 
lar sovereignty, slavery has been kept out of 
Kansas, notwithstanding the fact that for the 
first three years they had a legislature in that 
Territory favorable to it. I tell you, my 
friends, it is impossible under our institutions to 



1858] Bloomington Speech 89 

force slavery on an unwilling people. If this 
principle of popular sovereignty asserted in the 
Nebraska bill be fairly carried out, by letting 
the people decide the question for themselves, 
by a fair vote, at a fair election, and with honest 
returns, slavery will never exist one day, or one 
hour, in any Territory against the unfriendly 
legislation of an unfriendly people. I care not 
how the Dred Scott decision may have settled 
the abstract question so far as the practical re- 
sult is concerned; for, to use the language of an 
eminent Southern senator on this very question : 

I do not care a fig which the decision shall be, 
for it is of no particular consequence ; slavery cannot 
exist a day or an hour, in any Territory or State, 
unless it has affirmative laws sustaining and support- 
ing it, furnishing police regulations and remedies; 
and an omission to furnish them would be as fatal as 
a constitutional prohibition. Without affirmative 
legislation in its favor, slavery could not exist any 
longer than a new-born infant could survive under 
the heat of the sun, on a barren rock, without pro- 
tection. It would wilt and die for the want of sup- 
port. 

Hence, if the people of a Territory want slav- 
ery, they will encourage it by passing affirma- 
tive laws, and the necessary police regulations, 
patrol laws, and slave code; if they do not want 



90 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

it, they will withhold that legislation, and by- 
withholding it slavery is as dead as if it was pro- 
hibited by a constitutional prohibition, especi- 
ally if, in addition, their legislation is un- 
friendly, as it would be if they were opposed to 
it. They could pass such local laws and police 
regulations as would drive slavery out in one 
day, or one hour, if they were opposed to it; 
and therefore, so far as the question of slavery 
in the Territories is concerned, so far as the 
principle of popular sovereignty is concerned, 
in its practical operation, it matters not how the 
Dred Scott case may be decided with reference 
to the Territories. My own opinion on that law 
point is well known. It is shown by my votes 
and speeches in Congress. But be it as it may, 
the question was an abstract question, inviting 
no practical results; and whether slavery shall 
exist or shall not exist in any State or Territory 
will depend upon whether the people are for or 
against it; and whichever way they shall decide 
it in any Territory or in any State, will be en- 
tirely satisfactory to me. 

But I must now bestow a few words upon Mr. 
Lincoln's main objection to the Dred Scott de- 
cision. He is not going to submit to it. Not 
that he is going to make war upon it with force 
of arms. But he is going to appeal and reverse 
it in some way; he cannot tell us how. I reckon 



1858] Bloomington Speech 91 

not by a writ of error, because I do not know 
where he would prosecute that, except before an 
Abolition society. And when he appeals, he 
does not exactly tell us to whom he will appeal, 
except it be the Republican party; and I have 
yet to learn that the Republican party, under the 
Constitution, has judicial powers: but he is go- 
ing to appeal from it and reverse it, either by 
an Act of Congress, or by turning out the judges, 
or in some other way. And why? Because he 
says that that decision deprives the negro of the 
benefits of that clause of the Constitution of the 
United States which entitles the citizens of each 
State to all the privileges and immunities of 
citizens of the several States. 

Well, it is very true that the decision does have 
that effect. By deciding that a negro is not a 
citizen, of course it denies to him the rights and 
privileges awarded to citizens of the United 
States. It is this that Mr. Lincoln will not sub- 
mit to. Why? For the palpable reason that he 
wishes to confer upon the negro all the rights, 
privileges, and immunities of citizens of the sev- 
eral States. I will not quarrel with Mr. Lin- 
coln for his views on that subject. I have no 
doubt he is conscientious in them. I have 
not the slightest idea but that he conscientiously 
believes that a negro ought to enjoy and exercise 
all the rights and privileges given to white men; 



92 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

but I do not agree with him, and hence I can- 
not concur with him. 

I believe that this Government of ours was 
founded on the white basis. I believe that it 
was established by white men, by men of Euro- 
pean birth, or descended of European races, for 
the benefit of white men and their posterity in 
all time to come. I do not believe that it was 
the design or intention of the signers of the Dec- 
laration of Independence or the framers of the 
Constitution to include negroes, Indians, or 
other inferior races, with white men, as citizens. 
Our fathers had at that day seen the evil conse- 
quences of conferring civil and political rights 
upon the Indian and negro in the Spanish and 
French colonies on the American continent and 
the adjacent islands. In Mexico, in Central 
America, in South America and in the West 
India Islands, where the Indian, the negro, and 
men of all colors and all races are put on an 
equality by law, the effect of political amalga- 
mation can be seen. Ask any of those gallant 
young men in your own country, who went to 
Mexico to fight the battles of their country, in 
what friend Lincoln considers an unjust and un- 
holy war, and hear what they will tell you in 
regard to the amalgamation of races in that 
country. Amalgamation there, first political, 
then social, has led to demoralization and degra- 



1858] Bloomington Speech 93 

dation, until it has reduced that people below 
the point of capacity for self-government. Our 
fathers knew what the effect of it would be, and 
from the time they planted foot on the Amer- 
ican continent, not only those who landed at 
Jamestown, but at Plymouth Rock and all other 
points on the coast, they pursued the policy of 
confining civil and political rights to the white 
race and excluding the negro in all cases. 

Still, Mr. Lincoln conscientiously believes 
that it is his duty to advocate negro citizenship. 
He wants to give the negro the privilege of cit- 
izenship. He quotes Scripture again, and says: 
"As your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also 
perfect." And he applies that scriptural quota- 
tion to all classes; not that he expects us all to 
be as perfect as our Master, but as nearly per- 
fect as possible. In other words, he is willing 
to give the negro an equality under the law, in 
order that he may approach as near perfection, 
or an equality with the white man, as possible. 
To this same end he quotes the Declaration of 
Independence in these words: "We hold these 
truths to be self-evident, that all men were creat- 
ed equal, and endowed by their Creator with 
certain inalienable rights among which are, life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" and goes 
on to argue that the negro was included, or in- 
tended to be included, in that Declaration, by 



94 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

the signers of the paper. He says that, by the 
Declaration of Independence therefore, all 
kinds of men, negroes included, were created 
equal and endowed by their Creator with cer- 
tain inalienable rights, and, further, that the 
right of the negro to be on an equality with 
the white man is a divine right, conferred by 
the Almighty, and rendered inalienable accord- 
ing to the Declaration of Independence. 
Hence no human law or constitution can de- 
prive the negro of that equality with the white 
man to which he is entitled by the divine law. 
[A voice: "Higher law."] Yes, higher law. 

Now, I do not question Mr. Lincoln's sincer- 
ity on this point. He believes that the negro, 
by the divine law, is created the equal of the 
white man, and that no human law can deprive 
him of that equality, thus secured; and he con- 
tends that the negro ought, therefore, to have 
all the rights and privileges of citizenship on 
an equality with the white man. In order to 
accomplish this, the first thing that would have 
to be done in this State would be to blot out of 
our State constitution that clause which pro- 
hibits negroes from coming into this State and 
making it an African colony, and permit them 
to come and spread over these charming prairies 
until in midday they shall look black as night. 
When our friend Lincoln gets all his colored 



1858] Bloomington Speech 95 

brethren around him here, he will then raise 
them to perfection as fast as possible, and place 
them on an equality with the white man, first 
removing all legal restrictions, because they are 
our equals by divine law, and there should be 
no such restrictions. 

He wants them to vote. I am opposed to it. 
If they had a vote, I reckon they would all vote 
for him in preference to me, entertaining the 
views I do. But that matters not. The position 
he has taken on this question not only presents 
him as claiming for them the right to vote, but 
their right, under the divine law and the Decla- 
ration of Independence, to be elected to office, to 
become members of the legislature, to go to 
Congress, to become governors, or United States 
senators, or judges of the Supreme Court; and 
I suppose that when they control that court they 
will probably reverse the Dred Scott decision. 
He is going to bring negroes here, and give 
them the right of citizenship, the right of vot- 
ing, and the right of holding office and sitting 
on juries; and what else? Why, he would per- 
mit them to marry, would he not? And if he 
gives them that right, I suppose he will let them 
marry whom they please, provided they marry 
their equals. If the divine law declares that 
the white man is the equal of the negro woman, 
that they are on a perfect equality, I suppose he 



96 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

admits the right of the negro woman to marry 
the white man. In other words, his doctrine 
that the negro, by divine law, is placed on a 
perfect equality with the white man, and that 
that equality is recognized by the Declaration 
of Independence, leads him necessarily to estab- 
lish negro equality under the law; but whether 
even then they would be so in fact would depend 
upon the degree of virtue and intelligence they 
possessed, and certain other qualities that are 
matters of taste rather than of law. I do not un- 
derstand Mr. Lincoln as saying that he expects 
to make them our equals socially, or by intelli- 
gence, nor in fact as citizens, but that he wishes 
to make them our equals under the law, and then 
say to them, "as your Master in heaven is per- 
fect, be ye also perfect." 

Well, I confess to you, my fellow-citizens, 
that I am utterly opposed to that system of Abo- 
lition philosophy. I do not believe that the 
signers of the Declaration of Independence had 
any reference to negroes when they used the ex- 
pression that all men were created equal, or that 
they had any reference to the Chinese or Coolies, 
the Indians, the Japanese, or any other inferior 
race. They were speaking of the white race, 
the European race on this continent, and their 
descendertts, and emigrants who should come 
here. They were speaking only of the white 



1858] Bloomington Speech 97 

race, and never dreamed that their language 
would be construed to include the negro. 

And now for the evidence of that fact. At 
the time the Declaration of Independence was 
put forth, declaring the equality of all men, 
every one of the thirteen colonies was a slave- 
holding colony, and every man who signed that 
Declaration represented a slaveholding consti- 
tuency. Did they intend, when they put their 
signatures to that instrument, to declare that 
their own slaves were on an equality with them; 
that they were made their equals by divine law, 
and that any human law reducing them to an 
inferior position was void, as being in violation 
of divine law? Was that the meaning of the 
signers of the Declaration of Independence? 
Did Jefferson and Henry and Lee, — did any of 
the signers of that instrument, or all of them, 
on the day they signed it, give their slaves free- 
dom? History records that they did not. Did 
they go further, and put the negro on an equal- 
ity with the white man throughout the country? 
They did not. 

And yet if they had understood that declara- 
tion as including the negro, which Mr. Lincoln 
holds they did, they would have been bound, 
as conscientious men, to have restored the negro 
to that equality which he thinks the Almighty 
intended they should occupy with the white 



98 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

man. They did not do it. Slavery was abol- 
ished in only one State before the adoption of 
the Constitution in 1789, and then in others 
gradually, down to the time this Abolition agi- 
tation began; and it has not been abolished in 
one since. The history of the country shows 
that neither the signers of the Declaration, nor 
the framers of the Constitution, ever supposed 
it possible that their language would be used 
in an attempt to make this nation a mixed nation 
of Indians, negroes, whites, and mongrels. I 
repeat, that our whole history confirms the prop- 
osition, that from the earliest settlement of the 
colonies down to the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence and the adoption of the Constitution of 
the United States, our fathers proceeded on the 
white basis, making the white people the gov- 
erning race, but conceding to the Indian and 
negro, and all inferior races, all the privileges 
they could enjoy consistent with the safety of 
the society in which they lived. 

That is my opinion now. I told you that hu- 
manity, philanthropy, justice, and sound policy 
required that we should give the negro every 
right, every privilege, every immunity, consist- 
ent with the safety and welfare of the State. 
The question then naturally arises, What are 
those rights and privileges, and What is the na- 
ture and extent of them? My answer is, that 



1858] Bloomington Speech 99 

that is a question which each State and each Ter- 
ritory must decide for itself. We have decided 
that question. We have said that in this State 
the negro shall not be a slave, but that he shall 
enjoy no political rights; that negro equality 
shall not exist. I am content with that posi- 
tion. My friend Lincoln is not. He thinks 
that our policy and our laws on that subject are 
contrary to the Declaration of Independence. 
He thinks that the Almighty made the negro his 
equal and his brother. For my part, I do not 
consider the negro any kin to me, nor to any 
other white man ; but I would still carry my hu- 
manity and my philanthropy to the extent of 
giving him every privilege and every immunity 
that he could enjoy, consistent with our own 
good. 

We in Illinois have the right to decide upon 
that question for ourselves, and we are bound 
to allow every other State to do the same. 
Maine allows the negro to vote on an equality 
with the white man. I do not quarrel with our 
friends in Maine for that. If they think it wise 
and proper in Maine to put the negro on an 
equality with the white man, and allow him to 
go to the polls and negative the vote of a white 
man, it is their business, and not mine. On the 
other hand, New York permits a negro to vote, 
provided he owns $250 worth of property. 



ioo Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

New York thinks that a negro ought to be per- 
mitted to vote, provided he is rich, but not other- 
wise. They allow the aristocrat negro to vote 
there. I never saw the wisdom, the propriety, 
or the justice, of that decision on the part of 
New York, and yet it never occurred to me that 
I had a right to find fault with that State. It 
is her business; she is a sovereign State, and has 
a right to do as she pleases ; and if she will take 
care of her own negroes, making such regula- 
tions concerning them as suit her, and let us 
alone, I will mind my business, and not inter- 
fere with her. In Kentucky they will not give 
a negro any political or any civil rights. I 
shall not argue the question whether Kentucky 
in so doing has decided right or wrong, wisely 
or unwisely. It is a question for Kentucky to 
decide for herself. I believe that the Ken- 
tuckians have consciences as well as ourselves; 
they have as keen a perception of their religious, 
moral, and social duties as we have; and I am 
willing that they shall decide this slavery ques- 
tion for themselves, and be accountable to their 
God for their action. It is not for me to ar- 
raign them for what they do. I will not judge 
them, lest I shall be judged. Let Kentucky 
mind her own business and take care of her ne- 
groes, and we attend to our own affairs and take 
care of our negroes, and we will be the best of 



1858] Bloomington Speech 101 

friends; but if Kentucky attempts to interfere 
with us, or we with her, there will be strife, there 
will be discord, there will be relentless hatred, 
there will be everything but fraternal feeling 
and brotherly love. 

"It is not necessary that you should enter Ken- 
tucky and interfere in that State," to use the lan- 
guage of Mr. Lincoln. It is just as offensive 
to interfere from this State, or send your mis- 
siles over there. I care not whether an enemy, 
if he is going to assault us, shall actually come 
into our State, or come along the line, and 
throw his bombshells over to explode in our 
midst. Suppose England should plant a bat- 
tery on the Canadian side of the Niagara River, 
opposite Buffalo, and throw bombshells over, 
which would explode in Main street, in that 
city, and destroy the buildings ; and that, when 
we protested, she would say, in the language of 
Mr. Lincoln, that she never dreamed of coming 
into the United States to interfere with us, and 
that she was just throwing her bombs over the 
line from her own side, which she had a right 
to do. Would that explanation satisfy us? So 
it is with Mr. Lincoln. He is not going into 
Kentucky, but he will plant his batteries on this 
side of the Ohio, where he is safe and secure 
for a retreat, and will throw his bombshells — 
his Abolition documents — over the river, and 



102 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

will carry on a political warfare, and get up 
strife between the North and the South, until 
he elects a sectional president; reduces the South 
to the condition of dependent colonies; raises 
the negro to an equality; and forces the South to 
submit to the doctrine that a house divided 
against itself cannot stand ; that the Union divid- 
ed into half slave States and half free, cannot 
endure; that they must all be slave or they must 
all be free; and that as we in the North are in 
the majority, we will not permit them to be 
all slave, and therefore they in the South must 
consent to the States all being free. 

Now, fellow-citizens, I submit to you 
whether these doctrines are consistent with the 
peace and harmony of this Union? I submit 
to you whether they are consistent with our du- 
ties as citizens of a common Confederacy; 
whether they are consistent with the principles 
which ought to govern brethren of the same 
family? I recognize all the people of these 
States, North and South, East and West, old 
or new, Atlantic or Pacific, as our brethren 
flesh of our flesh, and I will do no act unto them 
that I would not be willing they should do unto 
us. I would apply the same Christian rule to 
the States of this Union that we are taught to 
apply to individuals, — "Do unto others as you 
would have others do unto you;" and this would 



1858] Bloomington Speech 103 

secure peace. Why should this slavery agita- 
tion be kept up? Does it benefit the white man 
or the slave? Who does it benefit, except the 
Republican politicians, who use it as their 
hobby to ride into office? Why, I repeat, 
should it be continued? Why cannot we be 
content to administer this Government as it was 
made, — a confederacy of sovereign and indepen- 
dent States? Let us recognize the sovereignty 
and independence of each State, refrain from in- 
terfering with the domestic institutions and reg- 
ulations of other States, permit the Territories 
and new States to decide their institutions for 
themselves, as we did when we were in their 
condition; blot out these lines of North and 
South, and resort to these lines of State boun- 
daries which the Constitution has marked out 
and engraved upon the face of the country; have 
no other dividing lines but these, and we will 
be one united, harmonious people, with frater- 
nal feelings, and no discord or dissension. 

These are my views, and these are the princi- 
ples to which I have devoted all my energies 
since 1850, when I acted side by side with the 
immortal Clay and the god-like Webster in that 
memorable struggle, in which Whigs and Dem- 
ocrats united upon a common platform of pa- 
triotism and the Constitution, throwing aside 
partisan feelings in order to restore peace and 



io4 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

harmony to a distracted country. And when I 
stood beside the death-bed of Mr. Clay, and 
heard him refer, with feelings and emotions of 
the deepest solicitude, to the welfare of the 
country, and saw that he looked upon the prin- 
ciple embodied in the great Compromise meas- 
ures of 1850, the principle of the Nebraska bill, 
the doctrine of leaving each State and Terri- 
tory free to decide its institutions for itself, as 
the only means by which the peace of the coun- 
try could be preserved and the Union perpetua- 
ted, — I pledged him, on that death-bed of his, 
that so long as I lived, my energies should be 
devoted to the vindication of that principle, and 
of his fame as connected with it. I gave the 
same pledge to the great expounder of the Con- 
stitution, he who has been called the "god-like 
Webster." I looked up to Clay and him as a 
son would to a father, and I call upon the peo- 
ple of Illinois, and the people of the whole Un- 
ion, to bear testimony that never since the sod 
has been laid upon the graves of these eminent 
statesmen have I failed, on any occasion, to vin- 
dicate the principle with which the last great 
crowning acts of their lives were identified, or 
to vindicate their names whenever they have 
been assailed; and how my life and energy are 
devoted to this great work as the means of pre- 
serving this Union. 



1858] Bloomington Speech io<; 

This Union can only be preserved by main- 
taining the fraternal feeling between the North 
and the South, the East and the West. If that 
good feeling can be preserved, the Union will 
be as perpetual as the fame of its great found- 
ers. It can be maintained by preserving the 
sovereignty of the States, the right of each State 
and each Territory to settle its domestic con- 
cerns for itself, and the duty of each to refrain 
from interfering with the other in any of its 
local or domestic institutions. Let that be done, 
and the Union will be perpetual; let that be 
done, and this Republic, which began with thir- 
teen States, and which now numbers thirty-two, 
which, when it began, only extended from the 
Atlantic to the Mississippi, but now reaches to 
the Pacific, may yet expand North and South, 
until it covers the whole Continent, and becomes 
one vast ocean-bound confederacy. Then, my 
friends, the path of duty, of honor, of patriot- 
ism, is plain. There are a few simple princi- 
ples to be preserved. Bear in mind the divid- 
ing line between State rights and Federal au- 
thority; let us maintain the great principles of 
sovereignty, of State rights, and of the Federal 
Union as the Constitution has made it, and this 
Republic will endure forever. 

I thank you kindly for the patience with 
which you have listened to me. I fear I have 



106 Stephen A. Douglas [July 16 

wearied you. I have a heavy day's work before 
me to-morrow, I have several speeches to make. 
My friends, in whose hands I am, are taxing me 
beyond human endurance; but I shall take the 
helm and control them hereafter. I am pro- 
foundly grateful to the people of McLean for 
the reception they have given me, and the kind- 
ness with which they have listened to me. I re- 
member when I first came among you here, 
twenty-five years ago, that I was prosecuting at- 
torney in this district, and that my earliest ef- 
forts were made here, when my deficiencies were 
too apparent, I am afraid, to be concealed from 
any one. I remember the courtesy and kind- 
ness with which I was uniformly treated by you 
all; and whenever I can recognize the face of 
one of your old citizens, it is like meeting an 
old and cherished friend. I come among you 
with a heart filled with gratitude for past 
favors. I have been with you but little for the 
past few years, on account of my official duties. 
I intend to visit you again before the campaign 
is over. I wish to speak to your whole people. 
I wish them to pass judgment upon the correct- 
ness of my course, and the soundness of the prin- 
ciples which I have proclaimed. 

If you do not approve my principles, I can- 
not ask your support. If you believe that the 
election of Mr. Lincoln would contribute more 



1858] Bloomington Speech 107 

to preserve the harmony of the country, to per- 
petuate the Union, and more to the prosperity 
and the honor and glory of the State, then it is 
your duty to give him the preference. If, on 
the contrary, you believe that I have been faith- 
ful to my trust, and that by sustaining me you 
will give greater strength and efficiency to the 
principles which I have expounded, I shall then 
be grateful for your support. I renew my pro- 
found thanks for your attention. 




io8 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 



Speech Delivered at Springfield, III., by 
Senator S. A. Douglas, July 17, 1858 

R. CHAIRMAN and fellow-citizens 
of Springfield and old Sangamon: 
My heart is filled with emotions at the 
allusions which have been so happily and so 
kindly made in the welcome just extended 
to me, — a welcome so numerous and so en- 
thusiastic, bringing me to my home among my 
old friends, that language cannot express my 
gratitude. I do feel at home whenever I re- 
turn to old Sangamon and receive those kind and 
friendly greetings which have never failed to 
meet me when I have come among you; but 
never before have I had such occasion to be 
grateful and to be proud of the manner of the 
reception as on the present. While I am will- 
ing, sir, to attribute a part of this demonstration 
to those kind and friendly personal relations to 
which you have referred, I cannot conceal from 
myself that the controlling and pervading ele- 
ment in this great mass of human beings is de- 
votion to that principle of self-government to 
which so many years of my life have been de- 
voted; and rejoice more in considering it an ap- 



1858] Springfield Speech 109 

proval of my support of a cardinal principle 
than I would if I could appropriate it to myself 
as a personal compliment. 

You but speak rightly when you assert that 
during the last session of Congress there was an 
attempt to violate one of the fundamental prin- 
ciples upon which our free institutions rest. 
The attempt to force the Lecompton constitu- 
tion upon the people of Kansas against their 
will, would have been, if successful, subversive 
of the great fundamental principles upon which 
all our institutions rest. If there is any one 
principle more sacred and more vital to the ex- 
istence of a free government than all others, it 
is the right of the people to form and ratify the 
constitution under which they are to live. It is 
the cornerstone of the temple of liberty; it is 
the foundation upon which the whole structure 
rests; and whenever it can be successfully evad- 
ed, self-government has received a vital stab. I 
deemed it my duty, as a citizen and as a repre- 
sentative of the State of Illinois, to resist, with 
all my energies and with whatever of ability I 
could command, the consummation of that ef- 
fort to force a constitution upon an unwilling 
people. 

I am aware that other questions have been 
connected, or attempted to be connected, with 
that great struggle; but they were mere col- 



no Stephen A. Douglas [July *7 

lateral questions, not affecting the main point. 
My opposition to the Lecompton constitution 
rested solely upon the fact that it was not the 
act and deed of that people, and that it did not 
embody their will. I did not object to it upon 
the ground of the slavery clause contained in it. 
I should have resisted it with the same energy 
and determination even if it had been a free 
State instead of a slaveholding State; and as an 
evidence of this fact I wish you to bear in mind 
that my speech against the Lecompton act was 
made on the 9th day of December, nearly two 
weeks before the vote was taken on the accept- 
ance or rejection of the slavery clause. I did 
not then know, I could not have known, whether 
the slavery clause would be accepted or reject- 
ed; the general impression was that it would be 
rejected ; and in my speech I assumed that im- 
pression to be true; that probably it would be 
voted down; and then I said to the United 
States Senate, as I now proclaim to you, my con- 
stituents, that you have no more right to force 
a free State upon an unwilling people than you 
have to force a slave State upon them against 
their will. You have no right to force either a 
good or a bad thing upon a people who do not 
choose to receive it. And then, again, the high- 
est privilege of our people is to determine for 
themselves what kind of institutions are good 



1858] Springfield Speech m 

and what kind of institutions are bad; and it 
may be true that the same people, situated in a 
different latitude and different climate, and with 
different productions and different interests, 
might decide the same question one way in the 
North and another way in the South, in order 
to adapt their institutions to the wants and 
wishes of the people to be affected by them. 

You all are familiar with the Lecompton 
struggle, and I will occupy no more time upon 
the subject, except to remark that when we 
drove the enemies of the principle of popular 
sovereignty from the effort to force the Lecomp- 
ton constitution upon the people of Kansas, and 
when we compelled them to abandon the at- 
tempt and to refer that constitution to that peo- 
ple for acceptance or rejection, we obtained a 
concession of the principle for which I had con- 
tended throughout the struggle. When I saw 
that the principle was conceded, and that the 
constitution was not to be forced on Kansas 
against the wishes of the people, I felt anxious 
to give the proposition my support; but when I 
examined it, I found that the mode of reference 
to the people and the form of submission, upon 
which the vote was taken, was so objectionable 
as to make it unfair and unjust. 

Sir, it is an axiom with me that in every free 
government an unfair election is no election at 



ii2 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

all. Every election should be free, should be 
fair, with the same privileges and the same in- 
ducements for a negative as for an affirmative 
vote. The objection to what is called the "Eng- 
lish" proposition, by which the Lecompton con- 
stitution was referred back to the people of Kan- 
sas, was this: that if the people choose to accept 
the Lecompton constitution they could come in 
with only 35,000 inhabitants; while if they de- 
termined to reject it in order to form another 
more in accordance with their wishes and senti- 
ments, they were compelled to stay out until 
they should have 93,420 inhabitants. In other 
words, it was making a distinction anH discrim- 
ination between free States and slave States un- 
der the Federal Constitution. I deny ttie jus- 
tice, I deny the right, of any distinction or dis- 
crimination between the States North and 
South, free or slave. Equality among the 
States is a fundamental principle of this Gov- 
ernment. Hence, while I will never consent to 
the passage of a law that a slave State may 
come in with 35,000, while a free State shall not 
come in unless it have 93,000, on the other hand, 
I shall not consent to admit a free State with a 
population of 35,000, and require 93,000, in a 
slaveholding State. 

My principle is to recognize each State of the 
Union as independent, sovereign, and equal in 



1858] Springfield Speech 113 

its sovereignty. I will apply that principle, 
not only to the original thirteen States, but to 
the States which have since been brought into 
the Union, and also to every State that shall 
hereafter be received, "as long as water shall 
run, and grass grow." For these reasons I felt 
compelled, by a sense of duty, by a conviction 
of principle, to record my vote against what is 
called the English bill; but yet the bill became 
a law, and under that law an election has been 
ordered to be held on the first Monday in Au- 
gust, for the purpose of determining the ques- 
tion of the acceptance or rejection of the prop- 
osition submitted by Congress. 

I have no hesitation in saying to you, as the 
chairman of your committee has justly said in 
his address, that whatever the decision of the 
people of Kansas may be at that election, it must 
be final and conclusive of the whole subject; for 
if at that election a majority of the people of 
Kansas shall vote for the acceptance of the Con- 
gressional proposition, Kansas from that mo- 
ment becomes a State of the Union, the law ad- 
mitting her becomes irrepealable, and thus the 
controversy terminates forever; if, on the other 
hand, the people of Kansas shall vote down that 
proposition, as it is now generally admitted they 
will, by a large majority, then from that instant 
the Lecompton constitution is dead, — dead be- 



ii4 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

yond the power of resurrection; and thus the 
controversy terminates. And when the monster 
shall die, I shall be willing, and trust that all of 
you will be willing to acquiesce in the death of 
the Lecompton constitution. The controversy 
may now be considered as terminated, for in 
three weeks from now it will be finally settled, 
and all the ill-feeling, all the embittered feeling 
which grew out of it shall cease, unless an at- 
tempt should be made in the future to repeat 
the same outrage upon popular rights. 

I need not tell you that my past course is a 
sufficient guarantee that if the occasion shall 
ever arise again while I occupy a seat in the 
United States Senate, you will find me carrying 
out the same principle that I have this winter, 
with all the energy and all the power I may be 
able to command. I have the gratification of 
saying to you that I do not believe that that con- 
troversy will ever arise again : first, because the 
fate of Lecompton is a warning to the people of 
every Territory and of every State to be cautious 
how the example is repeated; and, secondly be- 
cause the President of the United States, in his 
annual message, has said that he trusts the exam- 
ple in the Minnesota case, wherein Congress 
passed a law, calling an Enabling Act, requir- 
ing the Constitution to be submitted to the peo- 
ple for acceptance or rejection, will be followed 



1858] Springfield Speech 115 

in all future cases. [Voice: "That was right."] 
I agree with you that it was right. I said so on 
the day after the message was delivered, in my 
speech in the Senate on the Lecompton constitu- 
tion, and I have frequently in the debate tender- 
ed to the President and his friends, tendered to 
the Lecomptonites, my voluntary pledge, that if 
he will stand by that recommendation, and they 
will stand by it, that they will find me working 
hand in hand with them in the effort to carry it 
out. All we have to do, therefore, is to adhere 
firmly in the future, as we have done in the past, 
to the principle contained in the recommenda- 
tion of the President in his annual message, that 
the example in the Minnesota case shall be car- 
ried out in all future cases of the admission of 
Territories into the Union as States. Let that 
be done, and the principle of popular sover- 
eignty will be maintained in all of its vigor and 
all of its integrity. 

I rejoice to know that Illinois stands promi- 
nently and proudly forward among the States 
which first took their position firmly and im- 
movably upon this principle of popular sover- 
eignty, applied to the Territories as well as to 
the States. You all recollect when, in 1850, the 
peace of the country was disturbed in conse- 
quence of the agitation of the slavery question, 
and the effort to force the Wilmot proviso upon 



u6 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

all the Territories, that it required all the talent 
and all the energy, all the wisdom, all the pa- 
triotism, of a Clay and a Webster, united with 
other great party leaders, to devise a system of 
measures by which peace and harmony could be 
restored to our distracted country. Those com- 
promise measures eventually passed, and were 
recorded on the statute book, not only as the set- 
tlement of the then existing difficulties, but as 
furnishing a rule of action which should pre- 
vent in all future time the recurrence of like 
evils, if they were firmly and fairly carried out. 
Those compromise measures rested, as I said in 
my speech at Chicago on my return home that 
year, upon the principle that every people ought 
to have the right to form and regulate their own 
domestic institutions in their own way, subject 
only to the Constitution. They were founded 
upon the principle that while every State pos- 
sessed that right under the Constitution, that the 
same right ought to be extended to and exercised 
by the people of the Territories. 

When the Illinois legislature assembled, a few 
months after the adoption of these measures, the 
first thing the members did was to review their 
action upon this slavery agitation, and to correct 
the errors into which their predecessors had 
fallen. You remember that their first act was 
to repeal the Wilmot proviso instructions to our 



1858] Springfield Speech 117 

United States senators, which had been prev- 
iously passed, and in lieu of them to record an- 
other resolution upon the journal, with which 
you must all be familiar, — a resolution brought 
forward by Mr. Ninian Edwards, and adopted 
by the House of Representatives by a vote of 61 
in the affirmative to 4 in the negative. That 
resolution I can quote to you in almost its pre- 
cise language. It declared that the great prin- 
ciple of self-government was the birthright of 
freemen, was the gift of Heaven, was achieved 
by the blood of our revolutionary fathers, and 
must be continued and carried out in the organi- 
zation of all the Territories and the admission 
of all new States. That became the Illinois 
platform by the united voices of the Democratic 
party and of the Whig party in 1851 ; all the 
Whigs and all the Democrats in the legislature 
uniting in an affirmative vote upon it, and there 
being only four votes in the negative, — of Aboli- 
tionists, of course. 

That resolution stands upon the journal of 
your legislature to this day and hour unrepealed, 
as a standing, living, perpetual instruction to the 
senators from Illinois in all time to come to carry 
out that principle of self-government, and allow 
no limitation upon it in the organization of any 
Territories or the admission of any new States. 
In 1854, when it became my duty as the chair- 



u8 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

man of the committee on Territories to bring 
forward a bill for the organization of Kansas 
and Nebraska, I incorporated that principle in 
it, and Congress passed it, thus carrying the 
principle into practical effect. I will not recur 
to the scenes which took place all over the coun- 
try in 1854, when that Nebraska bill passed. I 
could then travel from Boston to Chicago by the 
light of my own effigies, in consequence of hav- 
ing stood up for it. I leave it to you to say how 
I met that storm, and whether I quailed under 
it; whether I did not "face the music," justify 
the principle, and pledge my life to carry it out. 
A friend here reminds me, too, that when 
making speeches then, justifying the Nebraska 
bill and the great principle of self-government, 
I predicted that in less than five years you would 
have to get out a search-warrant to find an anti- 
Nebraska man. Well, I believe I did make that 
prediction. I did not claim the power of a 
prophet, but it occurred to me that among a free 
people, and an honest people, and an intelligent 
people, five years was long enough for them to 
come to an understanding that the great prin- 
ciple of self-government was right, not only in 
the States, but in the Territories. I rejoiced 
this year to see my prediction, in that respect, 
carried out and fulfilled by the unanimous vote, 



1858] Springfield Speech 119 

in one form or another, of both Houses of Con- 
gress. 

If you will remember that pending this Le- 
compton controversy that gallant old Roman, 
Kentucky's favorite son, the worthy successor of 
the immortal Clay, — I allude, as you know, to 
the gallant John J. Crittenden, — brought for- 
ward a bill, now known as the Crittenden-Mont- 
gomery bill, in which it was proposed that the 
Lecompton constitution should be referred back 
to the people of Kansas, to be decided for or 
against it, at a fair election, and if a majority of 
the people were in favor of it, that Kansas should 
come into the Union as a slaveholding State, 
but that if a majority were against it, that they 
should make a new constitution, and come in 
with slavery or without it, as they thought 
proper. [Voice: "That was right."] Yes, my 
dear sir, it was not only right, but it was carry- 
ing out the principle of the Nebraska bill in its 
letter and in its spirit. Of course I voted for 
it, and so did every Republican senator and 
representative in Congress. I have found some 
Democrats so perfectly straight that they blame 
me for voting for the principle of the Nebraska 
bill because the Republicans voted the same way. 
[Great laughter. And "What did they say?"] 

What did they say? Why, many of them said 
that Douglas voted with the Republicans. Yes, 



120 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

not only that, but with the black Republicans. 
Well, there are different modes of stating that 
proposition. The New York Tribune says that 
Douglas did not vote with the Republicans, but 
that on that question the Republicans went over 
to Douglas and voted with him. 

My friends, I have never yet abandoned a 
principle because of the support I found men 
yielding to it, and I shall never abandon my 
Democratic principles merely because Repub- 
licans come to them. For what do we travel 
over the country and make speeches in every 
political canvass, if it is not to enlighten the 
minds of these Republicans, to remove the scales 
from their eyes, and to impart to them the light 
of Democratic vision, so that they may be able 
to carry out the Constitution of our country as 
our fathers made it. And if by preaching our 
principles to the people we succeed in convinc- 
ing the Republicans of the errors of their ways, 
and bring them over to us, are we bound to turn 
traitors to our principles merely because they 
give them their support? All I have to say is 
that I hope the Republican party will stand 
firm, in the future, by the vote they gave on the 
Crittenden-Montgomery bill. I hope we will 
find, in the resolutions of their county and con- 
gressional conventions, no declarations of "no 
more slave States to be admitted into this 



1858] Springfield Speech 121 

Union," but in lieu of that declaration that we 
will find the principle that the people of every 
State and every Territory shall come into the 
Union with slavery or without it, just as they 
please, without any interference on the part of 
Congress. 

My friends, whilst I was at Washington, en- 
gaged in this great battle for sound, constitu- 
tional principles, I find from the newspapers 
that the Republican party of this State assem- 
bled in this capital in State convention, and not 
only nominated, as it was wise and proper for 
them to do, a man for my successor in the Sen- 
ate, but laid down a platform, and their nomi- 
nee made a speech, carefully written and pre- 
pared, and well delivered, which that convention 
accepted as containing the Republican creed. 

I have no comment to make on that part of 
Mr. Lincoln's speech in which he represents me 
as forming a conspiracy with the Supreme 
Court, and with the late President of the United 
States, and the present chief magistrate, having 
for my object the passage of the Nebraska bill, 
the Dred Scott decision, and the extension of 
slavery, — a scheme of political tricksters, com- 
posed of Chief Justice Taney and his eight as- 
sociates, two Presidents of the United States, and 
one Senator of Illinois. If Mr. Lincoln deems 
me a conspirator of that kind, all I have to say 



122 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

is that I do not think so badly of the President 
of the United States, and the Supreme Court of 
the United States, the highest judicial tribunal 
on earth, as to believe that they were capable 
in their action and decision of entering into po- 
litical intrigues for partisan purposes. I there- 
fore shall only notice those parts of Mr. Lin- 
coln's speech in which he lays down his plat- 
form of principles, and tells you what he intends 
to do if he is elected to the Senate of the United 
States. 

[An old gentleman here arose on the platform 
and said, "Be particular now, Judge, be par- 
ticular."] 

My venerable friend here says he will be grat- 
ified if I will be particular; and in order that I 
may be so, I will read the language of Mr. Lin- 
coln as reported by himself and published to the 
country. Mr. Lincoln lays down his main 
proposition in these words: 

" A house divided against itself cannot stand." I 
believe this Union cannot endure permanently, half 
free and half slave. I do not expect the Union will 
be dissolved, I do not expect the house to fall ; but I 
do expect it to cease to be divided. It will become 
all one thing or all the other. 

Mr. Lincoln does not think this Union can 
continue to exist composed of half slave and half 



i8 5 8] Springfield Speech 123 

free States; they must all be free, or all slave. 
I do not doubt that this is Mr. Lincoln's con- 
scientious conviction. I do not doubt that he 
thinks it is the highest duty of every patriotic 
citizen to preserve this glorious Union, and to 
adopt these measures as necessary to its preserva- 
tion. He tells you that the only mode to pre- 
serve the Union is to make all the States free, 
or all slave. It must be the one, or it must be 
the other. Now, that being essential, in his esti- 
mation, to the preservation of this glorious 
Union, how is he going to accomplish it? He 
says that he wants to go to the Senate in order 
to carry out this favorite patriotic policy of his, 
of making all the States free, so that the house 
shall no longer be divided against itself. 

When he gets to the Senate, by what means 
is he going to accomplish it? By an Act of 
Congress? Will he contend that Congress has 
any power under the Constitution to abolish 
slavery in any State of this Union, or to interfere 
with it directly or indirectly? Of course he 
will not contend that. Then what is to be his 
mode of carrying out his principle, by which 
slavery shall be abolished in all of the States? 
Mr. Lincoln certainly does not speak at random. 
He is a lawyer, — an eminent lawyer, — and his 
profession is to know the remedy for every 
wrong. What is his remedy for this imaginary 



124 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

wrong which he supposes to exist? The Con- 
stitution of the United States provides that it 
may be amended by Congress passing an amend- 
ment by a two-thirds majority of each house, 
which shall be ratified by three-fourths of the 
States; and the inference is that Mr. Lincoln 
intends to carry this slavery agitation into Con- 
gress with the view of amending the Constitu- 
tion so that slavery can be abolished in all the 
States of the Union. 

In other words, he is not going to allow one 
portion of the Union to be slave and another 
portion to be free; he is not going to permit the 
house to be divided against itself. He is going 
to remedy it by lawful and constitutional means. 
What are to be these means? How can he abol- 
ish slavery in those States where it exists? 
There is but one mode by which a political or- 
ganization, composed of men in the free States, 
can abolish slavery in the slaveholding States, 
and that would be to abolish the State legisla- 
tures, blot out of existence the State sovereign- 
ties, invest Congress with full and plenary power 
over all the local and domestic and police regu- 
lations of the different States of this Union. 
Then there would be uniformity in the local 
concerns and domestic institutions of the differ- 
ent States; then the house would be no longer 
divided against itself; then the States would all 



1858] Springfield Speech 125 

be free, or they would all be slave; then you 
would have uniformity prevailing throughout 
this whole land in the local and domestic insti- 
tutions: but it would be a uniformity, not of lib- 
erty, but a uniformity of despotism that would 
triumph. I submit to you, my fellow-citizens, 
whether this is not the logical consequence of 
Mr. Lincoln's proposition. 

I have called on Mr. Lincoln to explain what 
he did mean, if he did not mean this, and he has 
made a speech at Chicago in which he attempts 
to explain. And how does he explain? I will 
give him the benefit of his own language, pre- 
cisely as it was reported in the Republican 
papers of that city, after undergoing his revis- 
ion: 

I have said a hundred times, and have now no 
inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no 
right and ought to be no inclination in the people of 
the free States to enter into the slave States and inter- 
fere with the question of slavery at all. 

He believes there is no right on the part of the 
free people of the free States to enter the slave 
States and interfere with the question of slavery, 
hence he does not propose to go into Kentucky 
and stir up a civil war and a servile war between 
the blacks and the whites. All he proposes is 
to invite the people of Illinois and every other 



i26 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

free State to band together as one sectional party, 
governed and divided by a geographical line, 
to make war upon the institution of slavery in 
the slaveholding States. He is going to carry 
it out by means of a political party that has its 
adherents only in the free States, — a political 
party that does not pretend that it can give a 
solitary vote in the slave States of the Union; 
and by this sectional vote he is going to elect 
a president of the United States, form a cabinet, 
and administer the Government on sectional 
grounds, being the power of the North over that 
of the South. 

In other words, he invites a war of the North 
against the South, a warfare of the free States 
against the slaveholding States. He asks all 
men in the free states to conspire to exterminate 
slavery in the Southern States, so as to make 
them all free, and then he notifies the South that 
unless they are going to submit to our efforts to 
exterminate their institutions, they must band 
together and plant slavery in Illinois and every 
Northern State. He says that the States must 
all be free or must all be slave. On this point 
I take issue with him directly. I assert that 
Illinois has a right to decide the slavery ques- 
tion for herself. We have decided it, and I 
think we have done it wisely ; but whether wisely 
or unwisely, it is our business, and the people 



1858] Springfield Speech 127 

of no other State have any right to interfere with 
us, directly or indirectly. Claiming as we do 
this right for ourselves, we must concede it to 
every other State, to be exercised by them re- 
spectively. 

Now, Mr. Lincoln says that he will not enter 
into Kentucky to abolish slavery there, but that 
all he will do is to fight slavery in Kentucky 
from Illinois. He will not go over there to set 
fire to the match. I do not think he would. 
Mr. Lincoln is a very prudent man. He would 
not deem it wise to go over into Kentucky to stir 
up this strife, but he would do it from this side 
of the river. Permit me to inquire whether the 
wrong, the outrage, of interference by one State 
with the local concerns of another is worse when 
you actually invade them than it would be if you 
carried on the warfare from another State? 
For the purpose of illustration, suppose the Brit- 
ish Government should plant a battery on the 
Niagara River, opposite Buffalo, and throw 
their shells over into Buffalo, where they should 
explode and blow up the houses and destroy the 
town. We call the British Government to an 
account, and they say, in the language of Mr. 
Lincoln, we did not enter into the limits of the 
United States to interfere with you; we planted 
the battery on our own soil, and had a right to 
shoot from our own soil; and if our shells and 



128 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

balls fell in Buffalo and killed your inhabitants, 
why, it is your look-out, not ours. 

Thus, Mr. Lincoln is going to plant his Abo- 
lition batteries all along the banks of the Ohio 
River, and throw his shells into Virginia and 
Kentucky and into Missouri, and blow up the 
institution of slavery; and when we arraign him 
for his unjust interference with the institutions 
of the other States, he says, "Why, I never did 
enter into Kentucky to interfere with her; I do 
not propose to do it; I only propose to take 
care of my own head by keeping on this side of 
the river, out of harm's way." But yet he says 
he is going to persevere in this system of sec- 
tional warfare, and I have no doubt he is sin- 
cere in what he says. He says that the existence 
of the Union depends upon his success in firing 
into these slave States until he exterminates 
them. He says that unless he shall play his bat- 
teries successfully, so as to abolish slavery in 
every one of the States, that the Union shall be 
dissolved; and he says that a dissolution of the 
Union would be a terrible calamity. Of course 
it would. We are all friends of the Union. 
We all believe — I do — that our lives, our liber- 
ties, our hopes in the future, depend upon the 
preservation and perpetuity of this glorious 
Union. I believe that the hopes of the friends 
of liberty throughout the world depend upon 



1858] Springfield Speech 129 

the perpetuity of the American Union. But 
while I believe that my mode of preserving the 
Union is a very different one from that of Mr. 
Lincoln, I believe that the Union can only be 
preserved by maintaining inviolate the Consti- 
tution of the United States as our fathers have 
made it. 

That Constitution guarantees to the people of 
every State the right to have slavery or not have 
it; to have negroes or not have them; to have 
Maine liquor laws or not have them ; to have just 
such institutions as they choose, each State being 
left free to decide for itself. The framers of 
that Constitution never conceived the idea that 
uniformity in the domestic institutions of the dif- 
ferent States was either desirable or possible. 
They well understood that the laws and institu- 
tions which w r ould be well adapted to the granite 
hills of New Hampshire would be unfit for the 
rice plantations of South Carolina; they well 
understood that each one of the thirteen States 
had distinct and separate interests, and required 
distinct and separate local laws and local insti- 
tutions. And in view of that fact they provided 
that each State should retain its sovereign power 
within its own limits, with the right to make just 
such laws and just such institutions as it saw 
proper, under the belief that no two of them 
would be alike. If they had supposed that uni- 



130 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

formity was desirable and possible, why did they 
provide for a separate legislature for each State? 
Why did they not blot out State sovereignty and 
State legislatures; and give all the power to 
Congress, in order that the laws might be uni- 
form? For the very reason that uniformity, in 
their opinion, was neither desirable nor possible. 
We have increased from thirteen States to 
thirty-two States; and just in proportion as the 
number of States increases and our territory ex- 
pands, there will be a still greater variety and 
dissimilarity of climate, of production, and of 
interest, requiring a corresponding dissimilar- 
ity and variety in the local laws and institutions 
adapted thereto. The laws that are necessary 
in the mining regions of California would be 
totally useless and vicious on the prairies of Illi- 
nois ; the laws that would suit the lumber regions 
of Maine or of Minnesota would be totally use- 
less and valueless in the tobacco regions of Vir- 
ginia and Kentucky; the laws which would suit 
the manufacturing districts of New England 
would be totally unsuited to the planting regions 
of the Carolinas, of Georgia, and of Louisiana. 
Each State is supposed to have interests separate 
and distinct from each and every other; and 
hence must have laws different from each and 
every other State, in order that its laws shall be 



1858] Springfield Speech 131 

adapted to the condition and necessities of the 
people. 

Hence I insist that our institutions rest on the 
theory that there shall be dissimilarity and va- 
riety in the local laws and institutions of the 
different States, instead of all being uniform; 
and you find, my friends, that Mr. Lincoln and 
myself differ radically and totally on the funda- 
mental principles of this Government. He goes 
for consolidation, for uniformity in our local 
institutions, for blotting out State rights and 
State sovereignty, and consolidating all the 
power in the Federal Government, for convert- 
ing these thirty-two sovereign States into one 
empire, and making uniformity throughout the 
length and breadth of the land. On the other 
hand, I go for maintaining the authority of the 
Federal Government within the limits marked 
out by the Constitution, and then for maintain- 
ing and preserving the sovereignty of each and 
all of the States of the Union, in order that each 
State may regulate and adopt its own local insti- 
tutions in its own way, without interference from 
any power whatsoever. Thus you find there is 
a distinct issue of principles — principles irrec- 
oncilable — between Mr. Lincoln and myself. 
He goes for consolidation and uniformity in our 
government; I go for maintaining the confed- 
eration 0/ the sovereign States under the Con- 



132 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

stitution as our fathers made it, leaving each 
State at liberty to manage its own affairs and 
own internal institutions. 

Mr. Lincoln makes another point upon me, 
and rests his whole case upon these two points. 
His last point is, that he will wage a warfare 
upon the Supreme Court of the United States 
because of the Dred Scott decision. He takes 
occasion, in his speech made before the Repub- 
lican convention, in my absence, to arraign me, 
not only for having expressed my acquiescence 
in that decision, but to charge me with being a 
conspirator with that court in devising that de- 
cision three years before Dred Scott ever thought 
of commencing a suit for his freedom. The ob- 
ject of his speech was to convey the idea to the 
people that the court could not be trusted, that 
the late President could not be trusted, that the 
present one could not be trusted, and that Mr. 
Douglas could not he trusted; that they were all 
conspirators in bringing about that corrupt de- 
cision, to which Mr. Lincoln is determined he 
will never yield a willing obedience. 

He makes two points upon the Dred Scott 
decision. The first is that he objects to it be- 
cause the court decided that negroes descended 
of slave parents are not citizens of the United 
States ; and, secondly, because they have decided 
that the Act of Congress passed 8th of March, 



1858] Springfield Speech 133 

1820, prohibiting slavery in all of the Territor- 
ies north of 36 degrees 30 minutes, was uncon- 
stitutional and void, and hence did not have 
effect in emancipating a slave brought into that 
Territory. And he will not submit to that de- 
cision. He says that he will not fight the judges 
or the United States marshals in order to liber- 
ate Dred Scott, but that he will not respect that 
decision, as a rule of law binding on this coun- 
try, in the future. Why not? Because, he says, 
it is unjust. How is he going to remedy it? 
Why, he says he is going to reverse it. £Iow? 
He is going to take an appeal. To whom is he 
going to appeal? The Constitution of the 
United States provides that the Supreme Court 
is the ultimate tribunal, the highest judicial tri- 
bunal on earth; and Mr. Lincoln is going to ap- 
peal from that! To whom? 

I know he appealed to the Republican State 
convention, of Illinois, and I believe that con- 
vention reversed the decision; but I am not 
aware that they have yet carried it into effect. 
How are they going to make that reversal effec- 
tual? Why, Mr. Lincoln tells us in his late Chi- 
cago speech. He explains it as clear as light. 
He says to the people of Illinois that if you elect 
him to the Senate he will introduce a bill to re- 
enact the law which the court pronounced un- 
constitutional. [Shouts of laughter, and voices, 



134 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

"Spot the law."] Yes, he is going to spot the 
law. The court pronounces that law prohibit- 
ing slavery, unconstitutional and void, and Mr. 
Lincoln is going to pass an act reversing that 
decision and making it valid. I never heard be- 
fore of an appeal being taken from the Supreme 
Court to the Congress of the United States to 
reverse its decision. I have heard of appeals 
being taken from Congress to the Supreme 
Court to declare a statute void. That has been 
done from the earliest days of Chief Justice 
Marshall down to the present time. 

The Supreme Court of Illinois do not hesi- 
tate to pronounce an Act of the legislature void, 
as being repugnant to the Constitution, and the 
Supreme Court of the United States is vested by 
the Constitution with that very power. The 
Constitution says that that judicial power of the 
United States shall be vested in the Supreme 
Court and such inferior courts as Congress shall, 
from time to time, ordain and establish. Hence 
it is the province and duty of the Supreme Court 
to pronounce judgment on the validity and con- 
stitutionality of an Act of Congress. In this 
case they have done so, and Mr. Lincoln will 
not submit to it, and he is going to reverse it by 
another Act of Congress of the same tenor. My 
opinion is that Mr. Lincoln ought to be on the 
Supreme Bench himself, when the Republicans 



1858] Springfield Speech 135 

get into power, if that kind of law knowledge 
qualifies a man for the bench. 

But Mr. Lincoln intimates that there is an- 
other mode by which he can reverse the Dred 
Scott decision. How is that? Why, he is 
going to appeal to the people to elect a Presi- 
dent who will appoint judges who will reverse 
the Dred Scott decision. Well, let us see how 
that is going to be done. First, he has to carry 
on his sectional organization, a party confined 
to the free States, making war upon the slave- 
holding States until he gets a Republican presi- 
dent elected. [Voice: "He never will, sir."] 
I do not believe he ever will. But suppose he 
should; when that Republican president shall 
have taken his seat (Mr. Seward, for instance), 
will he then proceed to appoint judges? No! 
he will have to wait until the present judges die 
before he can do that; and perhaps his four years 
would be out before a majority of these judges 
found it agreeable to die; and it is very possible, 
too, that Mr. Lincoln's senatorial term would 
expire before these judges would be accommo- 
dating enough to die. If it should so happen; 
I do not see a very great prospect for Mr. Lin- 
coln to reverse the Dred Scott decision. 

But suppose they should die, then how are 
the new judges to be appointed? Why, the Re- 
publican president is to call upon the candidates 



136 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

and catechise them, and ask them, "How will 
you decide this case if I appoint you judge?" 
Suppose, for instance, Mr. Lincoln to be candi- 
date for a vacancy on the Supreme Bench to fill 
Chief Justice Taney's place, and when he ap- 
plied to Seward, the latter would say, "Mr. Lin- 
coln, I cannot appoint you until I know how you 
will decide the Dred Scott case?" Mr. Lincoln 
tells him, and he then asks him how he will de- 
cide Tom Jones's case, and Bill Wilson's case, 
and thus catechises the judge as to how he will 
decide any case which may arise before him. 
Suppose you get a Supreme Court composed of 
such judges, who have been appointed by a 
partisan president upon their giving pledges 
how they would decide a case before it arose, — 
what confidence would you have in such a court? 
Would not your court be prostituted beneath the 
contempt of all mankind? What man would 
feel that his liberties were safe, his right of per- 
son or property was secure, if the Supreme 
Bench, that august tribunal, the highest on earth, 
was brought down to that low, dirty pool 
wherein the judges are to give pledges in ad- 
vance how they will decide all the questions 
which may be brought before them? It is a 
proposition to make that court the corrupt, un- 
scrupulous tool of a political party. But Mr. 
Lincoln cannot conscientiously submit, he 



1858] Springfield Speech 137 

thinks, to the decision of a court composed of a 
majority of Democrats. If he cannot, how can 
he expect us to have confidence in a court com- 
posed of a majority of Republicans, selected for 
the purpose of deciding against the Democracy, 
and in favor of the Republicans? The very 
proposition carries with it the demoralization 
and degradation destructive of the judicial de- 
partment of the Federal Government. 

I say to you, fellow-citizens, that I have no 
warfare to make upon the Supreme Court be- 
cause of the Dred Scott decision. I have no 
complaints to make against that Court because 
of that decision. My private opinions on some 
points of the case may have been one way; and 
on other points of the case another; in some 
things concurring with the Court, and in others 
dissenting; but what have my private opinions 
in a question of law to do with the decision after 
it has been pronounced by the highest judicial 
tribunal known to the Constitution? You, sir 
[addressing the chairman], as an eminent law- 
yer, have a right to entertain your opinions on 
any question that comes before the court, and to 
appear before the tribunal and maintain them 
boldly and with tenacity until the final decision 
shall have been pronounced; and then, sir, 
whether you are sustained or overruled, your 
duty as a lawyer and a citizen is to bow in defer- 



138 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

ence to that decision. I intend to yield obe- 
dience to the decisions of the highest tribunal 
in the land in all cases, whether their opinions 
are in conformity with my views as a lawyer or 
not. When we refuse to abide by judicial de- 
cisions, what protection is there left for life and 
property? To whom shall you appeal? To 
mob law, to partisan caucuses, to town meetings, 
to revolution? Where is the remedy when you 
refuse obedience to the constituted authorities? 
I will not stop to inquire whether I agree or dis- 
agree with all the opinions expressed by Judge 
Taney or any other judge. It is enough for me 
to know that the decision has been made. It has 
been made by a tribunal appointed by the Con- 
stitution to make it; it was a point within their 
jurisdiction, and I am bound by it. 

But, my friends, Mr. Lincoln says that this 
Dred Scott decision destroys the doctrine of 
popular sovereignty, for the reason that the 
Court has decided that Congress had no power 
to prohibit slavery in the Territories, and hence 
he infers that it would decide that the Territo- 
rial legislatures could not prohibit slavery there. 
I will not stop to inquire whether the Court will 
carry the decision that far or not. It would be 
interesting as a matter of theory, but of no im- 
portance in practice; for this reason, that if the 
people of a Territory want slavery they will have 



1858] Springfield Speech 139 

it, and if they do not want it they will drive it 
out, and you cannot force it on them. Slavery 
cannot exist a day in the midst of an unfriendly 
people with unfriendly laws. There is truth 
and wisdom in a remark made to me by an em- 
inent Southern senator, when speaking of this 
technical right to take slaves into the Territories. 
Said he, "I do not care a fig which way the de- 
cision shall be, for it is of no particular conse- 
quence; slavery cannot exist a day or an hour 
in any Territory or State unless it has affirma- 
tive laws sustaining and supporting it, furnish- 
ing police regulations and remedies; and an 
omission to furnish them would be as fatal as a 
constitutional prohibition. Without affirma- 
tive legislation in its favor, slavery could not 
exist any longer than a new-born infant could 
survive under the heat of the sun, on a barren 
rock, without protection. It would wilt and 
die for the want of support." 

So it would be in the Territories. See the 
illustration in Kansas. The Republicans have 
told you, during the whole history of that Ter- 
ritory, down to last winter, that the pro-slavery 
party in the legislature had passed a pro-slavery 
code, establishing and sustaining slavery in 
Kansas, but that this pro-slavery legislature did 
not truly represent the people, but was imposed 
upon them by an invasion from Missouri; and 



i4o Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

hence the legislature were one way, and the peo- 
ple another. Granting all this, and what has 
been the result? With laws supporting slavery, 
but the people against, there are not as many 
slaves in Kansas to-day as there were on the day 
the Nebraska bill passed and the Missouri Com- 
promise was repealed. Why? Simply because 
slave-owners knew that if they took their slaves 
into Kansas, where a majority of the people were 
opposed to slavery, that it would soon be abol- 
ished, and they would lose their right of prop- 
erty in consequence of taking them there. For 
that reason they would not take or keep them 
there. If there had been a majority of the peo- 
ple in favor of slavery, and the climate had been 
favorable, they would have taken them there; 
but the climate not being suitable, the interest 
of the people being opposed to it, and a majority 
of them against it, the slave-owner did not find 
it profitable to take his slaves there, and conse- 
quently there are not as many slaves there to-day 
as on the day the Missouri Compromise was re- 
pealed. This shows clearly that if the people 
do not want slavery they will keep it out; and 
if they do want it, they will protect it. 

You have a good illustration of this in the Ter- 
ritorial history of this State. You all remember 
that by the Ordinance of 1787 slavery was pro- 
hibited in Illinois ; yet you all know, particularly 



1858] Springfield Speech 141 

you old settlers who were here in Territorial 
times; that the Territorial Legislature, in defi- 
ance of that Ordinance, passed a law allowing 
you to go into Kentucky, buy slaves, and bring 
them into the Territory, having them sign inden- 
tures to serve you and your posterity ninety-nine 
years, and their posterity thereafter to do the 
same. This hereditary slavery was introduced 
in defiance of the Act of Congress. That was 
the exercise of popular sovereignty, — the right 
of a Territory to decide the question for itself 
in defiance of the Act of Congress. On the 
other hand, if the people of a Territory are hos- 
tile to slavery, they will drive it out. Conse- 
quently, this theoretical question raised upon the 
Dred Scott decision is worthy of no considera- 
tion whatsoever, for it is only brought into these 
political discussions and used as a hobby upon 
which to ride into office, or out of which to man- 
ufacture political capital. 

But Mr. Lincoln's main objection to the Dred 
Scott decision I have reserved for my conclusion. 
His principal objection to that decision is that 
it was intended to deprive the negro of the rights 
of citizenship in the different States of the 
Union. Well, suppose it was, — and there is no 
doubt that that was its legal effect, — what is his 
objection to it? Why, he thinks that a negro 
ought to be permitted to have the rights of citi- 



142 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

zenship. He is in favor of negro citizenship, 
and opposed to the Dred Scott decision, because 
it declares that a negro is not a citizen, and hence 
is not entitled to vote. Here I have a direct 
issue with Mr. Lincoln. I am not in favor of 
negro citizenship. I do not believe that a negro 
is a citizen or ought to be a citizen. I believe 
that this Government of ours was founded, and 
wisely founded, upon the white basis. It was 
made by white men for the benefit of white men 
and their posterity, to be executed and managed 
by white men. I freely concede that humanity 
requires us to extend all the protection, all the 
privileges, all the immunities, to the Indian and 
the negro which they are capable of enjoying 
consistent with the safety of society. 

You may then ask me what are those rights, 
what is the nature and extent of the rights which 
a negro ought to have? My answer is that this 
is a question for each State and each Territory 
to decide for itself. In Illinois we have decided 
that a negro is not a slave, but we have at the 
same time determined that he is not a citizen 
and shall not enjoy any political rights. I con- 
cur in the wisdom of that policy, and am content 
with it. I assert that the sovereignty of Illinois 
had a right to determine that question as we 
have decided it, and I deny that any other State 
has a right to interfere with us or call us to ac- 



1858] Springfield Speech 143 

count for that decision. In the State of Maine 
they have decided by their constitution that the 
negro shall exercise the elective franchise and 
hold office on an equality with the white man. 
Whilst I do not concur in the good sense or cor- 
rect taste of that decision on the part of Maine, 
I have no disposition to quarrel with her. It is 
her business, and not ours. If the people of 
Maine desire to be put on an equality with the 
negro, I do not know that anybody in this State 
will attempt to prevent it. If the white people 
of Maine think a negro their equal, and that he 
has a right to come and kill their vote by a negro 
vote, they have a right to think so, I suppose, and 
I have no disposition to interfere with them. 

Then, again, passing over to New York, we 
find in that State they have provided that a negro 
may vote, provided he holds $250 worth of prop- 
erty, but that he shall not unless he does; that 
is to say, they will allow a negro to vote if he 
is rich, but a poor fellow they will not allow to 
vote. In New York they think a rich negro is 
equal to a white man. Well, that is a matter of 
taste with them. If they think so in that State, 
and do not carry the doctrine outside of it, and 
propose to interfere with us, I have no quarrel 
to make with them. It is their business. There 
is a great deal of philosophy and good sense in a 
saying of Fridley of Kane. Fridley had a law- 



144 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

suit before a justice of the peace, and the justice 
decided it against him. This he did not like; 
and standing up and looking at the justice for a 
moment, "Well, Squire," said he, "if a man 
chooses to make a darnation fool of himself, I 
suppose there is no law against it." That is all 
I have to say about these negro regulations and 
this negro voting in other States where they have 
systems different from ours. If it is their wish 
to have it so, be it so. There is no cause to com- 
plain. Kentucky has decided that it is not con- 
sistent with her safety and her prosperity to 
allow a negro to have either political rights or 
his freedom, and hence she makes him a slave. 
That is her business, not mine. It is her right 
under the Constitution of the country. The sov- 
ereignty of Kentucky, and that alone, can decide 
that question; and when she decides it, there is 
no power on earth to which you can appeal to 
reverse it. Therefore, leave Kentucky as the 
Constitution has left her, a sovereign, independ- 
ent State, with the exclusive right to have slav- 
ery or not as she chooses; and so long as I hold 
power I will maintain and defend her rights 
against any assaults, from whatever quarter they 
may come. 

I will never stop to inquire whether I approve 
or disapprove of the domestic institutions of a 
State. I maintain her sovereign rights. I de- 



1858] Springfield Speech 145 

fend her sovereignty from all assault, in the hope 
that she will join in defending us when we are 
assailed by any outside power. How are we to 
protect our sovereign rights, to keep slavery out, 
unless we protect the sovereign rights of every 
other State to decide the question for itself? 
Let Kentucky, or South Carolina, or any other 
State attempt to interfere in Illinois, and tell 
us that we shall establish slavery, in order to 
make it uniform, according to Mr. Lincoln's 
proposition, throughout the Union; let them 
come here and tell us that we must and shall 
have slavery, — and I will call on you to follow 
me, and shed the last drop of our hearts' blood 
in repelling the invasion and chastising their in- 
solence. And if we would fight for our reserved 
rights and sovereign power in our own limits, 
we must respect the sovereignty of each other 
Stat 

Hence, you find that Mr. Lincoln and myself 
come to a direct issue on this whole doctrine of 
slavery. He is going to wage a war against it 
everywhere, not only in Illinois, but in his na- 
tive State of Kentucky. And Why? Because 
he says that the Declaration of Independence 
contains this language: "We hold these truths 
to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ; 
that they are endowed by their Creator with cer- 
tain inalienable rights ; that among these are life, 



146 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

liberty and the pursuit of happiness;" and he 
asks whether that instrument does not declare 
that all men are created equal. Mr. Lincoln 
then goes on to say that that clause of the Declar- 
ation of Independence includes negroes. [Voice, 
"I say not."] Well, if you say not, I do not 
think you will vote for Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Lin- 
coln goes on to argue that the language "all 
men" included the negroes, Indians, and all in- 
ferior races. 

In his Chicago speech he says, in so many 
words, that it includes the negroes, that they 
were endowed by the Almighty with the right 
of equality with the white man, and therefore 
that that right is divine, — a right under the 
higher law; that the law of God makes them 
equal to the white man, and therefore that the 
law of the white man cannot deprive them of 
that right. This is Mr. Lincoln's argument. 
He is conscientious in his belief. I do not ques- 
tion his sincerity; I do not doubt that he, in his 
conscience, believes that the Almighty made the 
negro equal to the white man. He thinks that 
the negro is his brother. I do not think that 
the negro is any kin of mine at all. And here is 
the difference between us. I believe that the 
Declaration of Independence, in the words, "all 
men are created equal," was intended to allude 
only to the people of the United States, to men 



1858] Springfield Speech H7 

of European birth or descent, being white men; 
that they were created equal, and hence that 
Great Britain had no right to deprive them of 
their political and religious privileges; but the 
signers of that paper did not intend to include 
the Indian or the negro in that declaration; for 
if they had, would they not have been bound to 
abolish slavery in every State and colony from 
that day? 

Remember, too, that at the time the Declara- 
tion was put forth, every one of the thirteen col- 
onies were slaveholding colonies; every man 
who signed that Declaration represented slave- 
holding constituents. Did those signers mean 
by that act to charge themselves and all their 
constituents with having violated the law of 
God, in holding the negro in an inferior condi- 
tion to the white man? And yet, if they in- 
cluded negroes in that term, they were bound, 
as conscientious men, that day and that hour, not 
only to have abolished slavery throughout the 
land, but to have conferred political rights and 
privileges on the negro, and elevated him to an 
equality with the white man. [Voice, "They 
did not do it."] I know they did not do it; and 
the very fact that they did not shows that they 
did not understand the language they used to 
include any but the white race. Did they mean 
to say that the Indian, on this continent, was 



148 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

created equal to the white man, and that he was 
endowed by the Almighty with inalienable 
rights, — rights so sacred that they could not be 
taken away by any constitution or law that man 
could pass? Why, their whole action toward 
the Indian showed that they never dreamed that 
they were bound to put him on an equality. I 
am not only opposed to negro equality, but I am 
opposed to Indian equality. I am opposed to 
putting the Coolies, now importing into this 
country, on an equality with us, or putting the 
Chinese or any inferior race on an equality with 
us. 

I hold that the white race, the European race, 
I care not whether Irish, German, French, 
Scotch, English, or to what nation they belong, 
so they are the white race, to be our equals. 
And I am for placing them, as our fathers did, 
on an equality with us. Emigrants from Eu- 
rope, and their descendants, constitute the peo- 
ple of the United States. The Declaration of 
Independence only included the white people of 
the United States. The Constitution of the 
United States was framed by the white people; 
it ought to be administered by them, leaving 
each State to make such regulations concerning 
the negro as it chooses, allowing him political 
rights or not, as it chooses, and allowing him 
civil rights or not, as it may determine for itself. 



1858] Springfield Speech 149 

Let us only carry out those principles, and we 
will have peace and harmony in the different 
States. But Mr. Lincoln's conscientious scru- 
ples on this point govern his actions, and I honor 
him for following them, although I abhor the 
doctrine which he preaches. His conscientious 
scruples lead him to believe that the negro is 
entitled by divine right to the civil and political 
privileges of citizenship on an equality with the 
white man. 

For that reason he says he wishes the Dred 
Scott decision reversed. He wishes to confer 
those privileges of citizenship on the negro. 
Let us see how he will do it. He will first be 
called upon to strike out of the Constitution of 
Illinois that clause which prohibits free negroes 
and slaves from Kentucky or any other State 
comng into Illinois. When he blots out that 
clause, when he lets down the door or opens the 
gate for all the negro population to flow in and 
cover our prairies, until in midday they will 
look dark and black as night, — when he shall 
have done this, his mission will yet be un- 
fulfilled. Then it will be that he will apply his 
principles of negro equality; that is, if he can 
get the Dred Scott decision reversed in the 
meantime. He will then change the Constitu- 
tion again, and allow negroes to vote and hold 
office, and will make them eligible to the legis- 



r^o Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

lature, so that thereafter they can have the right 
men for United States senators. He will allow 
them to vote to elect the legislature, the judges, 
and the governor, and will make them eligible 
to the office of judge or governor, or to the legis- 
lature. He will put them on an equality with 
the white man. What then? Of course, after 
making them eligible to the judiciary, when he 
gets Cuffee elevated to the bench, he certainly 
will not refuse his judge the privilege of marry- 
ing any woman he may select! 

I submit to you whether these are not the 
legitimate consequences of his doctrine? If it 
be true, as he says, that by the Declaration of In- 
dependence and by divine law, the negro is 
created the equal of the white man ; if it be true 
that the Dred Scott decision is unjust and wrong, 
because it deprives the negro of citizenship and 
equality with the white man,— then does it not 
follow that if he had the power he would make 
negroes citizens, and give them all the rights and 
all the privileges of citizenship on an equality 
with white men? I think that is the inevitable 
conclusion. I do not doubt Mr. Lincoln's con- 
scientious conviction on the subject, and I do 
not doubt that he will carry out that doctrine 
if he ever has the power: but I resist it because 
I am utterly opposed to any political amalgama- 
tion or any other amalgamation on this con- 



1858] Springfield Speech 151 

tinent. We are witnessing the result of giving 
civil and political rights to inferior races in 
Mexico, in Central America, in South America, 
and in the West India Islands. Those young 
men who went from here to Mexico to fight the 
battles of their country in the Mexican war 
can tell you the fruits of negro equality with the 
white man. They will tell you that the result 
of that equality is social amalgamation, demor- 
alization, and degradation below the capacity 
for self-government. 

My friends, if we wish to preserve this Gov- 
ernment we must maintain it on the basis on 
which it was established; to-wit, the white basis. 
We must preserve the purity of the race not only 
in our politics, but in our domestic relations. 
We must then preserve the sovereignty of the 
States, and we must maintain the Federal Union 
by preserving the Federal Constitution invio- 
late. Let us do that, and our Union will not 
only be perpetual, but may extend until it shall 
spread over the entire continent. 

Fellow-citizens, I have already detained you 
too long. I have exhausted myself and wearied 
you, and owe you an apology for the desultory 
manner in which I have discussed these topics. 
I will have an opportunity of addressing you 
again before the November election comes off. 
I come to you to appeal to your judgment as 



152 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

American citizens, to take your verdict of ap- 
proval or disapproval upon the discharge of my 
public duty and my principles as compared with 
those of Mr. Lincoln. If you conscientiously 
believe that his principles are more in harmony 
with the feelings of the American people and the 
interests and honor of the Republic, elect him. 
If, on the contrary, you believe that my prin- 
ciples are more consistent with those great 
principles upon which our fathers framed this 
Government, then I shall ask you to so express 
your opinion at the polls. I am aware that it is 
a bitter and severe contest, but I do not doubt 
what the decision of the people of Illinois will 
be. I do not anticipate any personal collision 
between Mr. Lincoln and myself. You all know 
that I am an amiable, good-natured man, and I 
take great pleasure in bearing testimony to the 
fact that Mr. Lincoln is a kind-hearted, amiable, 
good-natured gentleman, with whom no man has 
a right to pick a quarrel, even if he wanted one. 
He is a worthy gentleman. I have known him 
for twenty-five years, and there is no better citi- 
zen and no kinder-hearted man. He is a fine 
lawyer, possesses high ability, and there is no 
objection to him, except the monstrous revolu- 
tionary doctrines with which he is identified and 
which he conscientiously entertains, and is de- 
termined to carry out if he gets the power. 



1858] Springfield Speech 153 

He has one element of strength upon which 
he relies to accomplish his object, and that is his 
alliance with certain men in this State claiming 
to be Democrats, whose avowed object is to use 
their power to prostrate the Democratic nomi- 
nees. He hopes he can secure the few men 
claiming to be friends of the Lecompton consti- 
tution, and for that reason you will find he does 
not say a word against the Lecompton constitu- 
tion of its supporters. He is as silent as the 
grave upon that subject. Behold Mr. Lincoln 
courting Lecompton votes, in order that he may 
go to the Senate as the representative of Repub- 
lican principles! You know that that alliance 
exists. I think you will find that it will ooze 
out before the contest is over. It must be a con- 
test of principle. Either the radical Abolition 
principles of Mr. Lincoln must be maintained, 
or the strong, constitutional, national Demo- 
cratic principles with which I am identified 
must be carried out. I shall be satisfied what- 
ever way you decide. I have been sustained by 
the people of Illinois with a steadiness, a firm- 
ness, and an enthusiasm which makes my heart 
overflow with gratitude. If I was now to be 
consigned to private life I would have nothing 
to complain of. I would even then owe you a 
debt of gratitude which the balance of my life 
could not repay. 



154 Stephen A. Douglas [July 17 

But, my friends, you have discharged every 
obligation you owe to me. I have been a thou- 
sand times paid by the welcome you have ex- 
tended to me since I have entered the State on 
my return home this time. Your reception not 
only discharges all obligations, but it furnishes 
inducement to renewed efforts to serve you in 
the future. If you think Mr. Lincoln will do 
more to advance the interests and elevate the 
character of Illinois than myself, it is your duty 
to elect him ; if you think he would do more to 
preserve the peace of the country and perpetuate 
the Union than myself, then elect him. I leave 
the question in your hands, and again tender you 
my profound thanks for the cordial and heart- 
felt welcome tendered to me this evening. 



Abraham Lincoln 

Wood Engraving by Timothy Cole from an Am- 
brotype taken for Marcus L. Ward in Spring- 
field, III., May 20, i860, Two Days 
after Lincoln's Nomination for 
President. 



I58] Springfield Speech 155 



Speech at Springfield, Illinois, July 17, 1858 

FELLOW-CITIZENS: Another election, 
which is deemed an important one, is 
approaching; and, as I suppose, the Re- 
publican party will without much difficulty elect 
their State ticket. But in regard to the legisla- 
ture, we, the Republicans, labor under some dis- 
advantages. In the first place, we have a leg- 
islature to elect upon an apportionment of the 
representation made several years ago, when the 
proportion of the population was far greater in 
the South (as compared with the North) than 
it now is; and inasmuch as our opponents hold 
almost entire sway in the South, and we a cor- 
respondingly large majority in the North, the 
fact that we are now to be represented as we 
were years ago, when the population was differ- 
ent, is to us a very great disadvantage. We had 
in the year 1855, according to law, a census or 
enumeration of the inhabitants taken for the 
purpose of a new apportionment of representa- 
tion. We know what a fair apportionment of 
representation upon that census would give us. 
We know that it could not, if fairly made, fail 
to give the Republican party from six to ten 



156 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

more members of the legislature than they can 
probably get as the law now stands. It so hap- 
pened at the last session of the legislature, that 
our opponents, holding the control of both 
branches of the legislature, steadily refused to 
give us such an apportionment as we were right- 
ly entitled to have upon the census already taken. 
The legislature steadily refused to give us such 
an apportionment as we were rightfully entitled 
to have upon the census taken of the population 
of the State. The legislature would pass no bill 
upon that subject, except such as was at least as 
unfair to us as the old one, and in which, in 
some instances, two men in the Democratic re- 
gions were allowed to go as far toward sending 
a member to the legislature as three were in the 
Republican regions. Comparison was made at 
the time as to representative and senatorial 
districts, which completely demonstrated that 
such was the fact. Such a bill was passed and 
tendered to the Republican governor for his 
signature ; but, principally for the reasons I have 
stated, he withheld his approval, and the bill 
fell without becoming a law. 

Another disadvantage under which we labor 
is that there are one or two Democratic senators 
who will be members of the next legislature, and 
will vote for the election of senator, who are 
holding over in districts in which we could, on 



1858] Springfield Speech 157 

all reasonable calculation, elect men of our own, 
if we only had the chance of an election. When 
we consider that there are but twenty-five sena- 
tors in the Senate, taking two from the side 
where they rightfully belong, and adding them 
to the other, is to us a disadvantage not to be 
lightly regarded. Still, so it is ; we have this to 
contend with. Perhaps there is no ground of 
complaint on our part. In attending to the many 
things involved in the last general election for 
president, governor, auditor, treasurer, superin- 
tendent of public instruction, members of con- 
gress, of the legislature, county officers, and so 
on, we allowed these things to happen by want 
of sufficient attention, and we have no cause to 
complain of our adversaries, so far as this mat- 
ter is concerned. But we have some cause to 
complain of the refusal to give us a fair appor- 
tionment. 

There is still another disadvantage under 
which we labor, and to which I will ask your at- 
tention. It arises out of the relative positions 
of the two persons who stand before the State 
as candidates for the Senate. Senator Douglas 
is of world-wide renown. All the anxious poli- 
ticians of his party, or who have been of his 
party for years past, have been looking upon him 
as certainly, at no distant day, to be the Presi- 
dent of the United States. They have seen in 



158 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

his round, jolly, fruitful face, post-offices, land- 
offices, marshalships and cabinet appointments, 
chargeships and foreign missions, bursting and 
sprouting out in wonderful exuberance, ready 
to be laid hold of by their greedy hands. And 
as they have been gazing upon this attractive 
picture so long, they cannot, in the little dis- 
traction that has taken place in the party, bring 
themselves to give up the charming hope; but 
with greedier anxiety they rush about him, sus- 
tain him, and give him marches, triumphal en- 
tries, and receptions beyond what even in the 
days of his highest prosperity they could have 
brought about in his favor. On the contrary, 
nobody has ever expected me to be President. 
In my poor, lean, lank face nobody has ever 
seen that any cabbages were sprouting out. 
These are disadvantages all, taken together, that 
the Republicans labor under. We have to fight 
this battle upon principle, and upon principle 
alone. I am, in a certain sense, made the stand- 
ard-bearer in behalf of the Republicans. I was 
made so merely because there had to be some one 
so placed, I being in no wise preferable to any 
other one of the twenty-five, perhaps a hundred, 
we have in the Republican ranks. Then I say 
I wish it to be distinctly understood and borne 
in mind, that we have to fight this battle without 
many — perhaps without any — of the external 



1858] Springfield Speech I59 

aids which are brought to bear against us. So 
I hope those with whom I am surrounded have 
principle enough to nerve themselves for the 
task, and leave nothing undone that can be fairly 
done to bring about the right result. 

After Senator Douglas left Washington, as 
his movements were made known by the public 
prints, he tarried a considerable time in the city 
of New York; and it was heralded that, like an- 
other Napoleon, he was lying by and framing 
the plan of his campaign. It was telegraphed 
to Washington City, and published in the 
"Union," that he was framing his plan for the 
purpose of going to Illinois to pounce upon 
and annihilate the treasonable and disunion 
speech which Lincoln had made here on the 
1 6th of June. Now, I do suppose that the 
judge really spent some time in New York 
maturing the plan of the campaign, as his 
friends heralded for him. I have been able, by 
noting his movements since his arrival in Illi- 
nois, to discover evidences confirmatory of that 
allegation. I think I have been able to see what 
are the material points of that plan. I will, for 
a little while, ask your attention to some of 
them. What I shall point out, though not 
showing the whole plan, are nevertheless the 
main points, as I suppose. 

They are not very numerous. The first is 



160 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

popular sovereignty. The second and third are 
attacks upon my speech made on the 16th of 
June. Out of these three points — drawing 
within the range of popular sovereignty the 
question of the Lecompton constitution — he 
makes his principal assault. Upon these his 
successive speeches are substantially one and the 
same. On this matter of popular sovereignty 
I wish to be a little careful. Auxiliary to these 
main points, to be sure, are their thunderings of 
cannon, their marching and music, their fizzle- 
gigs and fireworks; but I will not waste time 
with them. They are but the little trappings of 
the campaign. 

Coming to the substance, the first point, "pop- 
ular sovereignty." It is to be labeled upon the 
cars in which he travels ; put upon the hacks he 
rides in; to be flaunted upon the arches he passes 
under, and the banners which wave over him. 
It is to be dished up in as many varieties as a 
French cook can produce soups from potatoes. 
Now, as this is so great a staple of the plan of 
the campaign, it is worth while to examine it 
carefully; and if we examine only a very little, 
and do not allow ourselves to be misled, we shall 
be able to see that the whole thing is the most 
arrant quixotism that was ever enacted before a 
community- What is the matter of popular sov- 
ereignty? The first thing, in order to under- 



1858] Springfield Speech 16 r 

stand it, is to get a good definition of what it is, 
and after that to see how it is applied. 

I suppose almost every one knows that, in this 
controversy, whatever has been said has had 
reference to the question of negro slavery. We 
have not been in a controversy about the right of 
the people to govern themselves in the ordinary 
matters of domestic concern in the States and 
Territories. Mr. Buchanan, in one of his late 
messages (I think when he sent up the Lecomp- 
ton constitution), urged that the main point of 
public attention was not in regard to the great 
variety of small domestic matters, but was di- 
rected to the question of negro slavery; and he 
asserts that if the people had had a fair chance 
to vote on that question, there was no reasonable 
ground of objection in regard to minor questions. 
Now, while I think that the people had not had 
given, or offered them, a fair chance upon that 
slavery question, still, if there had been a fair 
submission to a vote upon that main question, 
the President's proposition would have been true 
to the uttermost. Hence, when hereafter I 
speak of popular sovereignty, I wish to be under- 
stood as applying what I say to the question of 
slavery only, not to other minor domestic mat- 
ters of a Territory or a State. 

Does Judge Douglas, when he says that sev- 
eral of the past years of his life have been 



1 62 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

devoted to the question of "popular sover- 
eignty," and that all the remainder of his life 
shall be devoted to it, does he mean to say that 
he has been devoting his life to securing to the 
people of the Territories the right to exclude 
slavery from the Territories? If he means so 
to say, he means to deceive; because he and every 
one knows that the decision of the Supreme 
Court, which he approves and makes especial 
ground of attack upon me for disapproving, for- 
bids the people of a Territory to exclude slavery. 
This covers the whole ground, from the settle- 
ment of a Territory till it reaches the degree of 
maturity entitling it to form a State constitution. 
So far as all that ground is concerned, the judge 
is not sustaining popular sovereignty, but abso- 
lutely opposing it. He sustains the decision 
which declares that the popular will of the Ter- 
ritories has no constitutional power to exclude 
slavery during their territorial existence. This 
being so, the period of time from the first set- 
tlement of a Territory, till it reaches the point of 
forming a State constitution is not the thing that 
the judge has fought for, or is fighting for; but 
on the contrary, he has fought for, and is fight- 
ing for the thing that annihilates and crushes 
out that same popular sovereignty. 

Well, so much being disposed of, what is left? 
Why, he is contending for the right of the peo- 



1858] Springfield Speech ^3 

pie, when they come to make a State constitution, 
to make it for themselves, and precisely as best 
suits themselves. I say again, that is quixotic. 
I defy contradiction when I declare that the 
judge can find no one to oppose him on that 
proposition. I repeat, there is nobody opposing 
that proposition on principle. Let me not be 
misunderstood. I know that, with reference to 
the Lecompton constitution, I may be misun- 
derstood ; but when you understand me correctly, 
my proposition will be true and accurate. No- 
body is opposing, or has opposed, the right of the 
people, when they form a constitution, to form 
it for themselves. Mr. Buchanan and his 
friends have not done it; they, too, as well as the 
Republicans and the Anti-Lecompton Demo- 
crats, have not done it; but, on the contrary, they 
together have insisted on the right of the people 
to form a constitution for themselves. The dif- 
ference between the Buchanan men on the one 
hand, and the Douglas men and the Republicans 
on the other, has not been on a question of prin- 
ciple, but on a question of fact. 

The dispute was upon the question of fact, 
whether the Lecompton constitution had been 
fairly formed by the people or not. Mr. Bu- 
chanan and his friends have not contended for 
the contrary principle any more than the Doug- 
las men or the Republicans. They have insisted 



164 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

that whatever of small irregularities existed in 
getting up the Lecompton constitution were such 
as happen in the settlement of all new Territor- 
ies. The question was, was it a fair emanation 
of the people? It was a question of fact and not 
of principle. As to the principle, all were 
agreed. Judge Douglas voted with the Repub- 
licans upon that matter of fact. 

He and they, by their voices and votes, denied 
that it was a fair emanation of the people. The 
administration affirmed that it was. With re- 
spect to the evidence bearing upon that question 
of fact, I readily agree that Judge Douglas and 
the Republicans had the right on their side, and 
that the administration was wrong. But I state 
again that, as a matter of principle, there is no 
dispute upon the right of a people in a Territory 
merging into a State to form a constitution for 
themselves without outside interference from 
any quarter. This being so, what is Judge 
Douglas going to spend his life for? Does he 
expect to stand up in majestic dignity, and go 
through his apotheosis and become a god, in the 
maintaining of a principle which neither man 
nor mouse in all God's creation is opposing? 
Now something in regard to the Lecompton con- 
stitution more specially; for I pass from this 
other question of popular sovereignty as the most 



1858] Springfield Speech 165 

arrant humbug that has ever been attempted on 
an intelligent community. 

As to the Lecompton constitution, I have al- 
ready said that on the question of fact as to 
whether it was a fair emanation of the people or 
not, Judge Douglas with the Republicans and 
some "Americans" had greatly the argument 
against the administration; and while I repeat 
this, I wish to know what there is in the opposi- 
tion of Judge Douglas to the Lecompton con- 
stitution that entitles him to be considered the 
only opponent to it — as being par excellence the 
very quintessence of that opposition. I agree to 
the rightfulness of his opposition. He in the 
Senate, and his class of men there, formed the 
number three and no more. In the House of 
Representatives his class of men — the Anti-Le- 
compton Democrats — formed a number of about 
twenty. It took one hundred and twenty to 
defeat the measure, against one hundred and 
twelve. Of the votes of that one hundred and 
twenty, Judge Douglas's friends furnished 
twenty, to add to which there were six Ameri- 
cans and ninety-four Republicans. I do not say 
that I am precisely accurate in their numbers, 
but I am sufficiently so for any use I am making 
of it. 

Why is it that twenty shall be entitled to all 
the credit of doing that work, and the hundred 



1 66 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

none of it? Why, if, as Judge Douglas says, the 
honor is to be divided and due credit is to be 
given to other parties, why is just so much given 
as is consonant with the wishes, the interests, and 
advancement of the twenty? My understand- 
ing is, when a common job is done, or a common 
enterprise prosecuted, if I put in five dollars to 
your one, I have a right to take out five dollars 
to your one. But he does not so understand it. 
He declares the dividend of credit for defeating 
Lecompton upon a basis which seems unprece- 
dented and incomprehensible. 

Let us see. Lecompton in the raw was de- 
feated. It afterward took a sort of cooked-up 
shape, and was passed in the English bill. It is 
said by the judge that the defeat was a good and 
proper thing. If it was a good thing, why is 
he entitled to more credit than others for the 
performance of that good act, unless there was 
something in the antecedents of the Republicans 
that might induce every one to expect them to 
join in that good work, and at the same time 
something leading them to doubt that he would? 
Does he place his superior claim to credit on the 
ground that he performed a good act which was 
never expected of him? He says I have a 
proneness for quoting scripture. If I should 
do so now, it occurs that perhaps he places him- 
self somewhat upon the ground of the parable 



1858] Springfield Speech 167 

of the lost sheep which went astray upon the 
mountains, and when the owner of the hundred 
sheep found the one that was lost, and threw 
it upon his shoulders, and came home rejoicing, 
it was said that there was more rejoicing over 
the one sheep that was lost and had been found, 
than over the ninety and nine in the fold. The 
application is made by the Saviour in this para- 
ble, thus : "Verily, I say unto you, there is more 
rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that re- 
penteth, than over ninety and nine just persons 
that need no repentance." 

And now, if the judge claims the benefit of 
this parable, let him repent. Let him not come 
up here and say: "I am the only just person; 
and you are the ninety-nine sinners!" Repent- 
ance before forgiveness is a provision of the 
Christian system, and on that condition alone 
will the Republicans grant him forgiveness. 

How will he prove that we have ever occu- 
pied a different position in regard to the Le- 
compton constitution or any principle in it? 
He says he did not make his opposition on the 
ground as to whether it was a free or slave con- 
stitution, and he would have you understand 
that the Republicans made their opposition be- 
cause it ultimately became a slave constitution. 
To make proof in favor of himself on this point, 
he reminds us that he opposed Lecompton before 



1 68 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

the vote was taken declaring whether the State 
was to be free or slave. But he forgets to say 
that our Republican senator, Trumbull, made a 
speech against Lecompton even before he did. 

Why did he oppose it? Partly, as he declares, 
because the members of the convention who 
framed it were not fairly elected by the people; 
that the people were not allowed to vote unless 
they had been registered; and that the people 
of whole counties, in some instances, were not 
registered. For these reasons he declares the 
constitution was not an emanation, in any true 
sense, from the people. He also has an addi- 
tional objection as to the mode of submitting the 
constitution back to the people. But bearing 
on the question of whether the delegates were 
fairly elected, a speech of his, made something 
more than twelve months ago from this stand, 
becomes important. It was made a little while 
before the election of the delegates who made 
Lecompton. In that speech he declared there 
was every reason to hope and believe the election 
would be fair, and if any one failed to vote it 
would be his own culpable fault. 

I, a few days after, made a sort of answer to 
that speech. In that answer I made substan- 
tially the very argument with which he com- 
bated his Lecompton adversaries in the Senate 
last winter. I pointed to the facts that the peo- 



1858] Springfield Speech 169 

pie could not vote without being registered, and 
that the time for registering had gone by. I 
commented on it as wonderful that Judge Doug- 
las could be ignorant of these facts, which every- 
one else in the nation so well knew. 

I now pass from popular sovereignty and Le- 
compton. I may have occasion to refer to one 
or both. 

When he was preparing his plan of campaign, 
Napoleon-like, in New York, as appears by two 
speeches I have heard him deliver since his ar- 
rival in Illinois, he gave special attention to a 
speech of mine delivered here on the 16th of 
June last. He says that he carefully read that 
speech. He told us that at Chicago a week ago 
last night, and he repeated it at Bloomington 
last night. Doubtless he repeated it again to- 
day, though I did not hear him. In the two 
first places — Chicago and Bloomington — I heard 
him ; to-day I did not. He said he had carefully 
examined that speech; when, he did not say; 
but there is no reasonable doubt it was when he 
was in New York preparing his plan of cam- 
paign. I am glad he did read it carefully. He 
says it was evidently prepared with great care. 
I freely admit it was prepared with care. I 
claim not to be more free from errors than 
others — perhaps scarcely so much; but I was 
very careful not to put anything in that speech 



170 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

as a matter of fact, or make any inferences which 
did not appear to me to be true and fully war- 
rantable. If I had made any mistake I was 
willing to be corrected; if I had drawn any in- 
ference in regard to Judge Douglas, or any one 
else, which was not warranted, I was fully pre- 
pared to modify it as soon as discovered. I 
planted myself upon the truth and the truth 
only, so far as I knew it, or could be brought to 
know it. 

Having made that speech with the most kindly 
feelings toward Judge Douglas, as manifested 
therein, I was gratified when I found that he had 
carefully examined it, and had detected no error 
of fact, nor any inference against him, nor any 
misrepresentations, of which he thought fit to 
complain. In neither of the two speeches I 
have mentioned, did he make any such com- 
plaint. I will thank any one who will inform 
me that he, in his speech to-day, pointed out 
anything I had stated, respecting him, as being 
erroneous. I presume there is no such thing. 
I have reason to be gratified that the care and 
caution used in that speech left it so that he, most 
of all others interested in discovering error, has 
not been able to point out one thing against him 
which he could say was wrong. He seizes upon 
the doctrines he supposes to be included in that 
speech, and declared that upon them will turn 



1858] Springfield Speech 171 

the issues of the campaign. He then quotes, or 
attempts to quote, from my speech. I will not 
say that he wilfully misquotes, but he does fail 
to quote accurately. His attempt at quoting is 
from a passage which I believe I can quote ac- 
curately from memory. I shall make the quo- 
tation now, with some comments upon it, as I 
have already said, in order that the judge shall 
be left entirely without excuse for misrepresent- 
ing me. I do so now, as I hope, for the last 
time. I do this in great caution, in order that 
if he repeats his misrepresentation, it shall be 
plain to all that he does so wilfully. If, after 
all, he still persists, I shall be compelled to recon- 
struct the course I have marked out for myself, 
and draw upon such humble resources as I have 
for a new course, better suited to the real exi- 
gencies of the case. I set out, in this campaign, 
with the intention of conducting it strictly as 
a gentleman, in substance at least, if not in the 
outside polish. The latter I shall never be, but 
that which constitutes the inside of a gentleman 
I hope I understand, and am not less inclined 
to practise than others. It was my purpose and 
expectation that this canvass would be con- 
ducted upon principle, and with fairness on 
both sides, and it shall not be my fault if this 
purpose and expectation shall be given up. 
He charges, in substance, that I invite a war 



172 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

of sections; that I propose all local institutions 
of the different States shall become consolidated 
and uniform. What is there in the language of 
that speech which expresses such purpose or 
bears such construction? I have again and 
again said that I would not enter into any of the 
States to disturb the institution of slavery. Judge 
Douglas said, at Bloomington, that I used lan- 
guage most able and ingenious for concealing 
what I really meant; and that while I had pro- 
tested against entering into the slave States, I 
nevertheless did mean to go on the banks of the 
Ohio and throw missiles into Kentucky, to dis- 
turb them in their domestic institutions. 

I said in that speech, and I meant no more, 
that the institution of slavery ought to be placed 
in the very attitude where the framers of this 
government placed it and left it. I do not un- 
derstand that the framers of our Constitution left 
the people in the free States in the attitude of 
firing bombs or shells into the slave States. I 
was not using that passage for the purpose for 
which he infers I did use it. I said : 

We are now far advanced into the fifth year since 
a policy was created for the avowed object and with 
the confident promise of putting an end to slavery 
agitation under the operation of that policy that 
agitation has not only ceased, but has constantly aug- 
mented. In my opinion it will not cease till fi, crisis 



1858] Springfield Speech 173 

shall have been reached and passed. " A house 
divided against itself cannot stand." I believe that 
this government cannot endure permanently half slave 
and half free. It will become all one thing or all 
the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest 
the further spread of it, and place it where the public 
mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of 
ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it for- 
ward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, 
old as well as new, North as well as South. 

Now you all see, from that quotation, I did 
not express my wish on anything. In that pas- 
sage I indicated no wish or purpose of my own; 
I simply expressed my expectation. Cannot the 
judge perceive a distinction between a purpose 
and an expectation? I have often expressed an 
expectation to die, but I have never expressed 
a wish to die. I said at Chicago, and now re- 
peat, that I am quite aware this government has 
endured half slave and half free for eighty-two 
years. I understand that little bit of history. 
I expressed the opinion I did, because I per- 
ceived — or thought I perceived — a new set of 
causes introduced. I did say at Chicago, in my 
speech there, that I do wish to see the spread of 
slavery arrested, and to see it placed where the 
public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in 
the course of ultimate extinction. I said that 
because I supposed, when the public mind shall 



174 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

rest in that belief, we shall have peace on the 
slavery question. I have believed — and now 
believe — the public mind did rest in that belief 
up to the introduction of the Nebraska bill. 

Although I have ever been opposed to slavery, 
so far I rested in the hope and belief that it was 
in the course of ultimate extinction. For that 
reason, it had been a minor question with me. I 
might have been mistaken; but I had believed, 
and now believe, that the whole public mind, 
that is, the mind of the great majority, had rested 
in that belief up to the repeal of the Missouri 
Compromise. But upon that event, I became 
convinced that either I had been resting in a de- 
lusion, or the institution was being placed on a 
new basis — a basis for making it perpetual, na- 
tional, and universal. Subsequent events have 
greatly confirmed me in that belief. I believe 
that bill to be the beginning of a conspiracy for 
that purpose. So believing, I have since then 
considered that question a paramount one. So 
believing, I think the public mind will never 
rest till the power of Congress to restrict the 
spread of it shall again be acknowledged and ex- 
ercised on the one hand, or, on the other, all 
resistance be entirely crushed out. I have ex- 
pressed that opinion, and I entertain it to-night. 
It is denied that there is any tendency to the na- 
tionalization of slavery in these States. 



1858] Springfield Speech 175 

Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, in one of his 
speeches, when they were presenting him canes, 
silver plate, gold pitchers and the like, for as- 
saulting Senator Sumner, distinctly affirmed his 
opinion that when this Constitution was formed, 
it was the belief of no man that slavery would 
last to the present day. 

He said, what I think, that the framers of our 
Constitution placed the institution of slavery 
where the public mind rested in the hope that 
it was in the course of ultimate extinction. But 
he went on to say that the men of the present 
age, by their experience, have become wiser than 
the framers of the Constitution; and the inven- 
tion of the cotton-gin had made the perpetuity 
of slavery a necessity in this country. 

As another piece of evidence tending to this 
same point. Quite recently in Virginia, a man 
— the owner of slaves — made a will providing 
that after his death certain of his slaves should 
have their freedom if they should so choose, and 
go to Liberia, rather than remain in slavery. 
They chose to be liberated. But the persons to 
whom they would descend as property claimed 
them as slaves. A suit was instituted, which 
finally came to the Supreme Court of Virginia, 
and was therein decided against the slaves, upon 
the ground that a negro cannot make a choice — 
that they had no legal power to choose — could 



176 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

not perform the condition upon which their 
freedom depended. 

I do not mention this with any purpose of crit- 
icizing it, but to connect it with the arguments 
as affording additional evidence of the change 
of sentiment upon this question of slavery in the 
direction of making it perpetual and national. 
I argue now as I did before, that there is such 
a tendency, and I am backed not merely by the 
facts, but by the open confession in the slave 
States. 

And now, as to the judge's inference, that be- 
cause I wish to see slavery placed in the course 
of ultimate extinction — placed where our fathers 
originally placed it — I wish to annihilate the 
State legislatures — to force cotton to grow upon 
the tops of the Green Mountains — to freeze ice 
in Florida — to cut lumber on the broad Illinois 
prairies — that I am in favor of all these ridicu- 
lous and impossible things. 

It seems to me it is a complete answer to all 
this to ask, if, when Congress did have the fash- 
ion of restricting slavery from free territory, 
when courts did have the fashion of deciding 
that taking a slave into a free country made him 
free — I say it is a sufficient answer to ask, if any 
of this ridiculous nonsense about consolidation 
and uniformity did actually follow? Who 
heard of any such thing, because of the ordi- 



1858] Springfield Speech 177 

nance of '87? because of the Missouri restric- 
tion? because of the numerous court decisions of 
that character? 

Now, as to the Dred Scott decision; for upon 
that he makes his last point at me. He boldly 
takes ground in favor of that decision. This is 
one half the onslaught, and one third of the 
entire plan of the campaign. I am opposed to 
that decision in a certain sense, but not in the 
sense which he puts on it. I say that in so far 
as it decided in favor of Dred Scott's master, and 
against Dred Scott and his family, I do not pro- 
pose to disturb or resist the decision. 

I never have proposed to do any such thing. 
I think that in respect for judicial authority, 
my humble history would not suffer in compari- 
son with that of Judge Douglas. He would 
have the citizen conform his vote to that decis- 
ion; the member of Congress, his; the President, 
his use of the veto power. He would make it a 
rule of political action for the people and all 
the departments of the government. I would 
not. By resisting it as a political rule, I disturb 
no right of property, create no disorder, excite 
no mobs. 

When he spoke at Chicago, on Friday evening 
of last week, he made this same point upon me. 
On Saturday evening I replied, and reminded 
him of a Supreme Court decision which he op- 



178 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

posed for at least several years. Last night, at 
Bloomington, he took some notice of that reply, 
but entirely forgot to remember that part of it. 

He renews his onslaught upon me, forgetting 
to remember that I have turned the tables 
against himself on that very point. I renew the 
effort to draw his attention to it. I wish to stand 
erect before the country, as well as Judge Doug- 
las, on this question of judicial authority, and 
therefore I add something to the authority in 
favor of my own position. I wish to show that 
I am sustained by authority, in addition to that 
heretofore presented. I do not expect to con- 
vince the judge. It is part of the plan of his 
campaign, and he will cling to it with a desper- 
ate grip. Even turn it upon him — the sharp 
point against him, and gaff him through — he 
will still cling to it till he can invent some new 
dodge to take the place of it. 

In public speaking it is tedious reading from 
documents, but I must beg to indulge the prac- 
tice to a limited extent. I shall read from a 
letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1820, and now 
to be found in the seventh volume of his corre- 
spondence, at page 177. It seems he had been 
presented by a gentleman of the name of Jarvis 
with a book, or essay, or periodical, called the 
"Republican," and he was writing in acknowl- 
edgment of the present, and noting some of its 



1858] Springfield Speech 179 

contents. After expressing the hope that the 
work will produce a favorable effect upon the 
minds of the young, he proceeds to say: 

That it will have this tendency may be expected, 
and for that reason I feel an urgency to note what I 
deem an error in it, the more requiring notice as 
your opinion is strengthened by that of many others. 
You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the 
judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional 
questions — a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and 
one which would place us under the despotism of an 
oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, 
and not more so. They have, with others, the same 
passions for party, for power, and the privilege of 
their corps. Their maxim is, " Boni judicis est am- 
pliare juris dictionem " ; and their power is the more 
dangerous as they are in office for life, and not re- 
sponsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective 
control. The Constitution has erected no such single 
tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, 
with the corruptions of time and party, its members 
would become despots. It has more wisely made all 
the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within 
themselves. 

Thus we see the power claimed for the Su- 
preme Court by Judge Douglas, Mr. Jefferson 
holds, would reduce us to the despotism of an 
oligarchy. 

Now, I have said no more than this — in fact, 



180 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

never quite so much as this — at least I am sus- 
tained by Mr. Jefferson. 

Let us go a little further. You remember we 
once had a national bank. Some one owed the 
bank a debt; he was sued and sought to avoid 
payment, on the ground that the bank was un- 
constitutional. This case went to the Supreme 
Court, and therein it was decided that the bank 
was constitutional. The whole Democratic 
party revolted against that decision. General 
Jackson himself asserted that he, as President, 
would not be bound to hold a national bank to 
be constitutional, even though the court had 
decided it to be so. He fell in precisely with 
the view of Mr. Jefferson, and acted upon it un- 
der his official oath, in vetoing a charter for a 
national bank. The declaration that Congress 
does not possess this constitutional power to 
charter a bank, has gone into the Democratic 
platform, at their national conventions, and was 
brought forward and reaffirmed in their last 
convention at Cincinnati. They have con- 
tended for that declaration, in the very teeth of 
the Supreme Court, for more than a quarter of 
a century. In fact, they have reduced the de- 
cision to an absolute nullity. That decision, I 
repeat, is repudiated in the Cincinnati platform; 
and still, as if to show that effrontery can go no 
farther, Judge Douglas vaunts, in the very 



1858] Springfield Speech 181 

speeches in which he denounces me for opposing 
the Dred Scott decision, that he stands on the 
Cincinnati platform. 

Now, I wish to know what the judge can 
charge upon me, with respect to decisions of the 
Supreme Court, which does not lie in all its 
length, breadth, and proportions at his own 
door. The plain truth is simply this: Judge 
Douglas is for Supreme Court decisions when 
he likes, and against them when he does not like 
them. He is for the Dred Scott decision be- 
cause it tends to nationalize slavery — because it 
is part of the original combination for that ob- 
ject. It so happens, singularly enough, that I 
never stood opposed to a decision of the Supreme 
Court till this. On the contrary, I have no 
recollection that he was ever particularly in 
favor of one till this. He never was in favor of 
any, nor opposed to any, till the present one, 
which helps to nationalize slavery. 

Free men of Sangamon, free men of Illinois, 
free men everywhere, judge ye between him and 
me upon this issue. 

He says this Dred Scott case is a very small 
matter at most; that it has no practical effect; 
that at best, or rather, I suppose, at worst, it is 
but an abstraction. I submit that the proposi- 
tion that the thing which determines whether a 
man is free or a slave is rather concrete than 



1 82 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

abstract. I think you would conclude that it 
was if your liberty depended upon it, and so 
would Judge Douglas if his liberty depended 
upon it. But suppose it was on the question of 
speading slavery over the new Territories that 
he considers it as being merely an abstract mat- 
ter, and one of no practical importance. How 
has the planting of slavery in new countries 
always been effected? It has now been decided 
that slavery cannot be kept out of our new Ter- 
ritories by any legal means. In what do our 
new Territories now differ in this respect from 
the old colonies when slavery was first planted 
within them? It was planted as Mr. Clay once 
declared, and as history proves true, by indi- 
vidual men in spite of the wishes of the people; 
the mother government refusing to prohibit it, 
and withholding from the people of the colo- 
nies the authority to prohibit it for themselves. 
Mr. Clay says this was one of the great and just 
causes of complaint against Great Britain by the 
colonies, and the best apology we can now make 
for having the institution amongst us. In that 
precise condition our Nebraska politicians have 
at last succeeded in placing our own new Terri- 
tories; the government will not prohibit slavery 
within them, nor allow the people to prohibit it. 
I defy any man to find any difference between 
the policy which originally planted slavery in 



1858] Springfield Speech 183 

these colonies and that policy which now pre- 
vails in our new Territories. If it does not go 
into them, it is only because no individual wishes 
it to go. The judge indulged himself doubtless, 
to-day,^ with the question as to what I am going 
to do with or about the Dred Scott decision. 
Well, judge, will you please tell me what you 
did about the bank decision? Will you not 
graciously allow us to do with the Dred Scott 
decision precisely as you did with the bank de- 
cision? You succeeded in breaking down the 
moral effect of that decision; did you find it 
necessary to amend the Constitution? or to set 
up a court of negroes in order to do it? 

There is one other point. Judge Douglas has 
a very affectionate leaning toward the Ameri- 
cans and Old Whigs. 

Last evening, in a sort of weeping tone, he 
described to us a death-bed scene. He had been 
called to the side of Mr. Clay, in his last mo- 
ments, in order that the genius of "popular 
sovereignty" might duly descend from the dying 
man and settle upon him, the living and most 
worthy successor. He could do no less than 
promise that he would devote the remainder of 
his life to "popular sovereignty"; and then the 
great statesman departs in peace. By this part 
of the "plan of the campaign," the judge has evi- 
dently promised himself that tears shall be 



184 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

drawn down the cheeks of all Old Whigs, as 
large as half-grown apples. 

Mr. Webster, too, was mentioned; but it did 
not quite come to a death-bed scene, as to him. 
It would be amusing, if it were not disgusting, 
to see how quick these compromise-breakers ad- 
minister on the political effects of their dead 
adversaries, trumping up claims never before 
heard of, and dividing the assets among them- 
selves. If I should be found dead to-morrow 
morning, nothing but my insignificance could 
prevent a speech being made on my authority, 
before the end of next week. It so happens that 
in that "popular sovereignty" with which Mr. 
Clay was identified, the Missouri Compromise 
was expressly reserved ; and it was a little singu- 
lar if Mr. Clay cast his mantle upon Judge 
Douglas on purpose to have that compromise 
repealed. 

Again, the judge did not keep faith with Mr. 
Clay when he first brought in his Nebraska bill. 
He left the Missouri Compromise unrepealed, 
and in his report accompanying the bill, he told 
the world he did it on purpose. The manes of 
Mr. Clay must have been in great agony, till 
thirty days later, when "popular sovereignty" 
stood forth in all its glory. 

One more thing. Last night Judge Douglas 
tormented himself with horrors about my dis- 



1858] Springfield Speech 185 

position to make negroes perfectly equal with 
white men in social and political relations. He 
did not stop to show that I have said any such 
thing, or that it legitimately follows from any- 
thing I have said, but he rushes on with his asser- 
tions. I adhere to the Declaration of Independ- 
ence. If Judge Douglas and his friends are not 
willing to stand by it, let them come up and 
amend it. Let them make it read that all men 
are created equal, except negroes. Let us have 
it decided whether the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, in this blessed year of 1858, shall be thus 
amended. In his construction of the Declara- 
tion last year, he said it only meant that Ameri- 
cans in America were equal to Englishmen in 
England. Then, when I pointed out to him 
that by that rule he excludes the Germans, the 
Irish, the Portuguese, and all the other people 
who have come amongst us since the Revolution, 
he reconstructs his construction. In his last 
speech he tells us it meant Europeans. 

I press him a little further, and ask if it meant 
to include the Russians in Asia? or does he mean 
to exclude the vast population from the princi- 
ples of our Declaration of Independence? I 
expect ere long he will introduce another 
amendment to his definition. He is not at all 
particular. He is satisfied with anything which 
does not endanger the nationalizing of negro 



1 86 Abraham Lincoln [July 17 

slavery. It may draw white men down, but it 
must not lift negroes up. Who shall say, "I am 
the superior, and you are the inferior?" 

My declarations upon this subject of negro 
slavery may be misrepresented, but cannot be 
misunderstood. I have said that I do not under- 
stand the Declaration to mean that all men were 
created equal in all respects. They are not our 
equal in color; but I suppose that it does mean 
to declare that all men are equal in some re- 
spects; they are equal in their right to "life, lib- 
erty, and the pursuit of happiness." Certainly 
the negro is not our equal in color — perhaps not 
in many other respects; still, in the right to put 
into his mouth the bread that his own hands have 
earned, he is the equal of every other man, white 
or black. In pointing out that more has been 
given you, you cannot be justified in taking away 
the little which has been given him. All I ask 
for the negro is that if you do not like him, let 
him alone. If God gave him but little, that 
little let him enjoy. 

When our government was established, we 
had the institution of slavery among us. We 
were in a certain sense compelled to tolerate its 
existence. It was a sort of necessity. We had 
gone through our struggle, and secured our own 
independence. The framers of the Constitution 
found the institution of slavery amongst their 



1858] Springfield Speech 187 

other institutions at the time. They found that 
by an effort to eradicate it, they might lose much 
of what they had already gained. They were 
obliged to bow to the necessity. They gave 
power to Congress to abolish the slave-trade at 
the end of twenty years. They also prohibited 
slavery in the Territories where it did not exist. 
They did what they could and yielded to neces- 
sity for the rest. I also yield to all which fol- 
lows from that necessity. What I would most 
desire would be the separation of the white and 
black races. 

One more point on this Springfield speech 
which Judge Douglas says he has read so care- 
fully. I expressed my belief in the existence of 
a conspiracy to perpetuate and nationalize slav- 
ery. I did not profess to know it, nor do I now. 
I showed the part Judge Douglas had played 
in the string of facts, constituting to my mind 
the proof of that conspiracy. I showed the 
parts played by others. I charged that the peo- 
ple had been deceived in carrying the last presi- 
dential election, by the impression that the peo- 
ple of the Territories might exclude slavery if 
they chose, when it was known in advance by the 
conspirators, that the court was to decide that 
neither Congress nor the people could so exclude 
slavery. These charges are more distinctly 
made than anything else in the speech. 



1 88 Abraham Lincoln [July 24 

Judge Douglas has carefully read and re-read 
that speech. He has not, so far as I know, con- 
tradicted those charges. In the two speeches 
which I heard he certainly did not. On his own 
tacit admission I renew that charge. I charge 
him with having been a party to that conspiracy, 
and to that deception, for the sole purpose of 
nationalizing slavery. 

*Letter to John Mathers 

Springfield, July 20, 1858. 
My dear Sir: Your kind and interesting let- 
ter of the 19th was duly received. Your sug- 
gestions as to placing one's self on the offensive 
rather than the defensive are certainly correct. 
That is a point which I shall not disregard. I 
spoke here on Saturday night. The speech, not 
very well reported, appears in the State Journal 
of this morning. You doubtless will see it; and 
I hope that you will perceive in it, that I am 
already improving. I would mail you a copy 
now, but have not one at hand. I thank you for 
your letter and shall be pleased to hear from you 
again. Yours very truly, 

A. Lincoln. 



Stephen A. Douglas 
Wood Engraving from a Daguerreotype taken after 
his Debates with Lincoln. 



;| . ... 







1858] Challenge to Debates 189 



Challenge to the Joint Debates, July 24, 
1*858 

Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Douglas. 

Chicago, Illinois, July 24, 1858. 

MY DEAR SIR: Will it be agree- 
able to you to make an arrangement 
for you and myself to divide time, 
and address the same audiences the present can- 
vass? Mr. Judd, who will hand you this, is 
authorized to receive your answer; and, if agree- 
able to you, to enter into the terms of such ar- 
rangement. Your obedient servant, 

A. Lincoln. 

Mr. Douglas to Mr. Lincoln. 

Chicago, July 24, 1858. 

Dear Sir: Your note of this date, in which 
you inquire if it would be agreeable to me to 
make an arrangement to divide the time and ad- 
dress the same audiences during the present can- 
vass, as handed me by Mr. Judd. Recent 
events have interposed difficulties in the way of 
such an arrangement. 

I went to Springfield last week for the pur- 



190 Stephen A. Douglas [July 24 

pose of conferring with the Democratic State 
Central Committee upon the mode of conduct- 
ing the canvass, and with them, and under their 
advice, made a list of appointments covering the 
entire period until late in October. The people 
of the several localities have been notified of 
the times and places of the meetings. Those 
appointments have all been made for Demo- 
cratic meetings, and arrangements have been 
made by which the Democratic candidates for 
Congress, for the legislature, and other offices 
will be present and address the people. It is 
evident, therefore, that these various candidates, 
in connection with myself, will occupy the whole 
time of the day and evening, and leave no 
opportunity for other speeches. 

Besides, there is another consideration which 
should be kept in mind. It has been suggested 
recently that an arrangement had been made to 
bring out a third candidate for the United States 
Senate, who, with yourself, should canvass the 
State in apposition to me, with no other purpose 
than to insure my defeat, by dividing the Demo- 
cratic party for your benefit. If I should make 
this arrangement with you, it is more than prob- 
able that this other candidate, who has a common 
object with you, would desire to become a party 
to it, and claim the right to speak from the same 
stand; so that he and you in concert might be 



1858] Challenge to Debates 191 

able to take the opening and closing speech in 
every case. 

I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise, 
if it was your original intention to invite such 
an arrangement, that you should have waited 
until after I had made my appointments, inas- 
much as we were both here in Chicago together 
for several days after my arrival, and again at 
Bloomington, Atlanta, Lincoln, and Springfield, 
where it was well known I went for the purpose 
of consulting with the State Central Committee, 
and agreeing upon the plan of the campaign. 

While under these circumstances I do not feel 
at liberty to make any arrangements which 
would deprive the Democratic candidates for 
Congress, State offices, and the legislature, from 
participating in the discussion at the various 
meetings designated by the Democratic State 
Central Committee, I will, in order to accommo- 
date you as far as it is in my power to do so, 
take the responsibility of making an arrange- 
ment with you for a discussion between us at one 
prominent point in each congressional district 
in the State, except the second and sixth districts, 
where we have both spoken, and in each of 
which cases you had the concluding speech. If 
agreeable to you, I will indicate the following 
places as those most suitable in the several con- 
gressional districts at which we should speak, to- 



192 Abraham Lincoln [July 29 

wit: Freeport, Ottawa, Galesburg, Quincy, 
Alton, Jonesboro, and Charleston. I will con- 
fer with you at the earliest convenient oppor- 
tunity in regard to the mode of conducting the 
debate, the times of meeting at the several places, 
subject to the condition that where appointments 
have already been made by the Democratic State 
Central Committee at any of those places, I 
must insist upon you meeting me at the time 
specified. Very respectfully, your most obe- 
dient servant, S. A. Douglas. 

*Letter to Joseph Gillespie 

Springfield, July 25, 1858. 
My dear Sir: Your doleful letter of the 
1 8th, was received on my return from Chicago 
last night. I do hope you are worse scared than 
hurt, though you ought to know best. We must 
not lose the district. We must make a job of it, 
and save it. Lay hold of the proper agencies, 
and secure all the Americans you can, at once. 
I do hope, on closer inspection, you will find 
they are not half gone. Make a little test. Run 
down one of the poll-books of the Edwardsville 
precinct, and take the first hundred known 
American names. Then quietly ascertain how 
many of them are actually going for Douglas. 
I think you will find less than fifty. But even 
if you find fifty, make sure of the other fifty, — 



1858] Challenge to Debates 193 

that is, make sure of all you can, at all events. 
We will set other agencies to work which shall 
compensate for the loss of a good many Ameri- 
cans. Don't fail to check the stampede at once. 
Trumbull, I think, will be with you before long. 
There is much he cannot do, and some he can. 
I have reason to hope there will be other help 
of an appropriate kind. Write me again. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

Preliminary Correspondence to the Joint 
Debates, July 29 to 31, 1858 

Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Douglas. 

Springfield, July 29, 1858. 
Dear Sir: Yours of the 24th in relation to 
an arrangement to divide time and address the 
same audiences is received; and in apology for 
not sooner replying, allow me to say that when 
I sat by you at dinner yesterday I was not aware 
that you had answered my note, nor certainly 
that my own had been presented to you. An 
hour after I saw a copy of your answer in the 
Chicago "Times," and reaching home, I found 
the original awaiting me. Protesting that your 
insinuations of attempted unfairness on my part 
are unjust, and with the hope that you did not 
very considerately make them, I proceed to 
reply. To your statement that "It has been 



i94 Abraham Lincoln [July 29 

suggested recently that an arrangement had been 
made to bring out a third candidate for the 
United States Senate, who, with yourself, should 
canvass the State in opposition to me," etc., I 
can only say that such suggestion must have been 
made by yourself, for certainly none such has 
been made by or to me, or otherwise, to my 
knowledge. Surely you did not deliberately 
conclude, as you insinuate, that I was expecting 
to draw you into an arrangement of terms, to 
be agreed on by yourself, by which a third can- 
didate and myself "in concert might be able to 
take the opening and closing speech in every 
case." 

As to your surprise that I did not sooner make 
the proposal to divide time with you, I can only 
say I made it as soon as I resolved to make it. 
I did not know but that such proposal would 
come from you; I waited respectfully to see. It 
may have been well known to you that you went 
to Springfield for the purpose of agreeing on 
the plan of campaign ; but it was not so known to 
me. When your appointments were announced 
in the papers, extending only to the 21st of Au- 
gust, I for the first time considered it certain that 
you would make no proposal to me, and then re- 
solved that, if my friends concurred, I would 
make one to you. As soon thereafter as I could 
see and consult with friends satisfactorily, I did 



1858] Challenge to Debates 195 

make the proposal. It did not occur to me that 
the proposed arrangement could derange your 
plans after the latest of your appointments al- 
ready made. After that, there was before the 
election largely over two months of clear time. 

For you to say that we have already spoken 
at Chicago and Springfield, and that on both oc- 
casions I had the concluding speech, is hardly a 
fair statement. The truth rather is this: At 
Chicago, July 9, you made a carefully prepared 
conclusion on my speech of June 16. Twenty- 
four hours after, I made a hasty conclusion on 
yours of the 9th. You had six days to prepare, 
and concluded on me again at Bloomington on 
the 1 6th. Twenty-four hours after, I concluded 
again on you at Springfield. In the mean time, 
you had made another conclusion on me at 
Springfield which I did not hear, and of the 
contents of which I knew nothing when I spoke ; 
so that your speech made in daylight, and mine 
at night, of the 17th, at Springfield, were both 
made in perfect independence of each other. 
The dates of making all these speeches will 
show, I think, that in the matter of time for 
preparation the advantage has all been on your 
side, and that none of the external circumstances 
have stood to my advantage. 

I agreed to an arrangement for us to speak at 
the seven places you have named, and at your 



196 Stephen A. Douglas [July 30 

own times, provided you name the times at once, 
so that I, as well as you, can have to myself the 
time not covered by the arrangement. As to the 
other details, I wish perfect reciprocity, and no 
more. I wish as much time as you, and that con- 
clusions shall alternate. That is all. Your 
obedient servant, A. Lincoln. 

P. S. As matters now stand, I shall be at no 
more of your exclusive meetings; and for about 
a week from to-day a letter from you will reach 
me at Springfield. A. L. 

Mr. Douglas to Mr. Lincoln. 

Bement, Piatt Co., III., July 30, 1858. 

Dear Sir: Your letter dated yesterday, accept- 
ing my proposition for a joint discussion at one 
prominent point in each congressional district, 
as stated in my previous letter, was received this 
morning. 

The times and places designated are as fol- 
lows: 

Ottawa, La Salle County August 21, 1858. 

Freeport, Stephenson County. . " 27, " 

Jonesboro, Union County September 15, " 

Charleston, Coles County 18, " 

Galesburg, Knox County October 7, " 

Quincy, Adams County " 13, " 

Alton, Madison County " 15, " 



1858] Challenge to Debates 197 

I agree to your suggestion that we shall alter- 
nately open and close the discussion. I will 
speak at Ottawa one hour; you can reply, occu- 
pying an hour and a half, and I will then follow 
for half an hour. At Freeport, you shall open 
the discussion and speak one hour; I will follow 
for an hour and a half, and you can then reply 
for half an hour. We will alternate in like 
manner in each successive place. Very respect- 
fully, your obedient servant, 

S. A. Douglas. 

Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Douglas. 

Springfield, July 31, 1858. 
Dear Sir: Yours of yesterday, naming places, 
times, and terms for joint discussions between 
us, was received this morning. Although by 
the terms, as you propose, you take four open- 
ings and closes to my three, I accede, and thus 
close the arrangement. I direct this to you at 
Hillsboro, and shall try to have both your letter 
and this appear in the "Journal" and "Register" 
of Monday morning. 

Your obedient servant, 

A. Lincoln. 

Letter to Henry Asbury 

Springfield, July 31, 1858. 
My dear Sir: Yours of the 28th is received. 
The points you propose to press upon Douglas 



198 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 2 

he will be very hard to get up to, but I think 
you labor under a mistake when you say no one 
cares how he answers. This implies that it is 
equal with him whether he is injured here or 
at the South. That is a mistake. He cares 
nothing for the South; he knows he is already 
dead there. He only leans Southward more to 
keep the Buchanan party from growing in Illi- 
nois. You shall have hard work to get him di- 
rectly to the point whether a territorial legisla- 
ture has or has not the power to exclude slavery. 
But if you succeed in bringing him to it — 
though he will be compelled to say it possesses 
no such power — he will instantly take ground 
that slavery cannot actually exist in the Terri- 
tories unless the people desire it, and so give it 
protection by territorial legislation. If this of- 
fends the South, he will let it offend them, as 
at all events he means to hold on to his chances in 
Illinois. You will soon learn by the papers that 
both the judge and myself are to be in Quincy 
on the 13th of October, when and where I ex- 
pect the pleasure of seeing you. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

*Letter to B. C. Cook 

Springfield, August 2, 1858. 
My dear Sir: I have a letter from a very true 
friend and intelligent man insisting that there 



1858] Letter to Sympson 199 

is a plan on foot in La Salle and Bureau to run 
Douglas republicans for Congress and for the 
Legislature in those counties, if they can only 
get the encouragement of our folks nominating 
pretty extreme abolitionists. It is thought they 
will do nothing if our folks nominate men who 
are not very obnoxious to the charge of abolition- 
ism. Please have your eye upon this. Signs 
are looking pretty fair. Yours very truly, 

A. Lincoln. 

*Letter to J. M. Palmer 

Springfield, August 5, 1858. 
Dear Sir: Since we parted last evening no 
new thought has occurred to [me] on the sub- 
ject of which we talked most yesterday. 

I have concluded, however, to speak at your 
town on Tuesday, August 31st, and have prom- 
ised to have it so appear in the papers of to- 
morrow. Judge Trumbull has not yet reached 
here. Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 
*Letter to Alexander Sympson 

Springfield, August 11, 1858. 

Dear Sir: Yours of the 6th received. If life 

and health continue I shall pretty likely be at 

Augusta on the 25th. Things look reasonably 

well. Will tell you more fully when I see you. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 



2oo Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 



First Joint Debate, at Ottawa, Illinois, 
August 21, 1858 * 

Mr. Douglas's Opening Speech. 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I ap- 
pear before you to-day for the purpose 
of discussing the leading political topics 
which now agitate the public mind. By an ar- 
rangement between Mr. Lincoln and myself, we 
are present here to-day for the purpose of hav- 
ing a joint discussion, as the representatives of 
the two great political parties of the State and 
Union, upon the principles in issue between those 
parties; and this vast concourse of people shows 

1 The Lincoln-Douglas debates created an almost unparal- 
leled furore throughout the whole country. In Illinois the de- 
bates were attended by immense crowds, many of the people 
coming for miles to listen patiently to three hour speeches. 
The eye of the nation focused on the State of Illinois, which 
was divided into opposing halves, the northern section against 
the southern section for slavery. Each orator endeavored to 
force the other into admissions which would ruin his chances 
for Senatorship in these antagonistic sections of Illinois. In 
the second debate Lincoln put questions to Douglas that if an- 
swered to please northern Illinois must offend the South. Lin- 
coln's friends warned him that he would lose the Senatorship 
if he so questioned his rival, to which he replied: "Gentlemen, 
I am killing large game; if Douglas answers he can never be 
President and the battle of i860 is worth a hundred of this." 



1858] Speech at Ottawa 201 

the deep feeling which pervades the public mind 
in regard to the questions dividing us. 

Prior to 1854 this country was divided into 
two great political parties, known as the Whig 
and Democratic parties. Both were national 
and patriotic, advocating principles that were 
universal in their application. An old-line 
Whig could proclaim his principles in Louis- 
iana and Massachusetts alike. Whig princi- 
ples had no boundary sectional line — they were 
not limited by the Ohio River, nor by the Poto- 
mac, nor by the line of the free and slave States, 
but applied and were proclaimed wherever the 
Constitution ruled or the American flag waved 
over the American soil. So it was, and so it is 
with the great Democratic party, which, from 
the days of Jefferson until this period, has 
proven itself to be the historic party of this na- 
tion. While the Whig and Democratic parties 
differed in regard to a bank, the tariff, distribu- 
tion, the specie circular, and the subtreasury, 
they agreed on the great slavery question which 
now agitates the Union. I say that the Whig 
party and the Democratic party agreed on the 
slavery question, while they differed on those 
matters of expediency to which I have referred. 
The Whig party and the Democratic party 
jointly adopted the compromise measures of 
1850 as the basis of a proper and just solution of 



202 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

the slavery question in all its forms. Clay was 
the great leader, with Webster on his right and 
Cass on his left, and sustained by the patriots 
in the Whig and Democratic ranks who had de- 
vised and enacted the compromise measures of 
1850. 

In 1 85 1 the Whig party and the Democratic 
party united in Illinois in adopting resolutions 
indorsing and approving the principles of the 
compromise measures of 1850, as the proper ad- 
justment of that question. In 1852, when the 
Whig party assembled in convention at Balti- 
more for the purpose of nominating a candidate 
for the presidency, the first thing it did was to 
declare the compromise measures of 1850, in 
substance and in principle, a suitable adjust- 
ment of that question. [Here the speaker was 
interrupted by loud and long-continued ap- 
plause.] My friends, silence will be more ac- 
ceptable to me in the discussion of these ques- 
tions than applause. I desire to address myself 
to your judgment, your understanding, and your 
consciences, and not to your passions or your en- 
thusiasm. When the Democratic convention as- 
sembled in Baltimore in the same year, for the 
purpose of nominating a Democratic candidate 
for the presidency, it also adopted the compro- 
mise measures of 1850 as the basis of Democratic 
action. Thus you see that up to 1853-54, the 



1858] Speech at Ottawa 203 

Whig party and the Democratic party both stood 
on the same platform with regard to the slavery 
question. That platform was the right of the 
people of each State and each Territory to de- 
cide their local and domestic institutions for 
themselves, subject only to the Federal Consti- 
tution. 

During the session of Congress of 1853-54, I 
introduced into the Senate of the United States 
a bill to organize the Territories of Kansas and 
Nebraska on that principle which had been 
adopted in the compromise measures of 1850, 
approved by the Whig party and the Demo- 
cratic party in Illinois in 185 1, and indorsed by 
the Whig party and the Democratic party in na- 
tional convention in 1852. In order that there 
might be no misunderstanding in relation to the 
principle involved in the Kansas and Nebraska 
bill, I put forth the true intent and meaning of 
the act in these words: "It is the true intent 
and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery 
into any State or Territory or to exclude it there- 
from, but to leave the people thereof perfectly 
free to form and regulate their domestic insti- 
tutions in their own way, subject only to the 
Federal Constitution." Thus you see that up to 
1854, when the Kansas and Nebraska bill was 
brought into Congress for the purpose of carry- 
ing out the principles which both parties had 



204 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

up to that time indorsed and approved, there had 
been no division in this country in regard to that 
principle except the opposition of the Aboli- 
tionists. In the House of Representatives of the 
Illinois legislature, upon a resolution asserting 
that principle, every Whig and every Democrat 
in the House voted in the affirmative, and only 
four men voted against it, and those four were 
old-line Abolitionists. 

In 1854 Mr. Abraham Lincoln and Mr. Ly- 
man Trumbull entered into an arrangement, one 
with the other, and each with his respective 
friends, to dissolve the Old Whig party on the 
one hand, and to dissolve the old Democratic 
party on the other, and to connect the members 
of both into an Abolition party, under the name 
and disguise of a Republican party. The terms 
of that arrangement between Lincoln and Trum- 
bull have been published by Lincoln's special 
friend, James H. Matheny, Esq., and they were 
that Lincoln should have General Shields's place 
in the United States Senate, which was then 
about to become vacant, and that Trumbull 
should have my seat when my term expired. 
Lincoln went to work to Abolitionize the Old 
Whig party all over the State, pretending that 
he was then as good a Whig as ever; and Trum- 
bull went to work in his part of the State preach- 
ing Abolitionism in its milder and lighter form, 



1858] Speech at Ottawa 20$ 

and trying to Abolitionize the Democratic party, 
and bring old Democrats handcuffed and bound 
hand and foot into the Abolition camp. In pur- 
suance of the arrangement, the parties met at 
Springfield in October, 1854, anQl proclaimed 
their new platform. Lincoln was to bring into 
the Abolition camp the old-line Whigs, and 
transfer them over to Giddings, Chase, Fred 
Douglass, and Parson Lovejoy, who were ready 
to receive them and christen them in their new 
faith. 

They laid down on that occasion a platform 
for their new Republican party, which was 
thus to be constructed. I have the resolutions 
of the State convention then held, which was 
the first mass State convention ever held in Illi- 
nois by the Black Republican party, and I now 
hold them in my hands and will read a part of 
them, and cause the others to be printed. Here 
are the most important and material resolutions 
of this Abolition platform: 

1. Resolved, That we believe this truth to be self- 
evident, that when parties become subversive of the 
ends for which they are established, or incapable of 
restoring the government to the true principles of the 
Constitution, it is the right and duty of the people to 
dissolve the political bands by which they may have 
been connected therewith, and to organize new par- 
ties upon such principles and with such views as the 



206 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

circumstances and the exigencies of the nation may 
demand. 

2. Resolved, That the times imperatively demand 
the reorganization of parties, and, repudiating all 
previous party attachments, names and predilections, 
we unite ourselves together in defense of the liberty 
and Constitution of the country, and will hereafter 
cooperate as the Republican party, pledged to the 
accomplishment of the following purposes: To bring 
the administration of the government back to the 
control of first principles; to restore Nebraska and 
Kansas to the position of free Territories; that, as the 
Constitution of the United States vests in the States, 
and not in Congress, the power to legislate for the 
extradition of fugitives from labor, to repeal and 
entirely abrogate the fugitive-slave law; to restrict 
slavery to those States in which it exists; to prohibit 
the admission of any more slave States into the Union ; 
to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; to 
exclude slavery from all the Territories over which 
the general government has exclusive jurisdiction ; and 
to resist the acquirement of any more Territories 
unless the practice of slavery therein forever shall 
have been prohibited. 

3. Resolved, That in furtherance of these prin- 
ciples we will use such constitutional and lawful means 
as shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, 
and that we will support no man for office, under the 
general or State government, who is not positively 
and fully committed to the support of these prin- 
ciples, and whose personal character and conduct is 



1858] Speech at Ottawa 207 

not a guaranty that he is reliable, and who shall not 
have abjured eld party allegiance and ties. 

Now, gentlemen, your Black Republicans 
have cheered every one of those propositions, 
and yet I venture to say that you cannot get Mr. 
Lincoln to come out and say that he is now in 
favor of each one of them. That these proposi- 
tions, one and all, constitute the platform of the 
Black Republican party of this day, I have no 
doubt; and when you were not aware for what 
purpose I was reading them, your Black Repub- 
licans cheered- them as good Black Republican 
doctrines. My object in reading these resolu- 
tions was to put the question to Abraham Lin- 
coln this day, whether he now stands and will 
stand by each article in that creed, and carry it 
out. I desire to know whether Mr. Lincoln to- 
day stands as he did in 1854, in favor of the un- 
conditional repeal of the fugitive-slave law. I 
desire him to answer whether he stands pledged 
to-day, as he did in 1854, against the admission 
of any more slave States into the Union, even 
if the people want them. I want to know 
whether he stands pledged against the admis- 
sion of a new State into the Union with such a 
constitution as the people of that State may see 
fit to make. I want to know whether he stands 
to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the 
District of Columbia. I desire him to answer 



208 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of 
the slave-trade between the different States. I 
desire to know whether he stands pledged to pro- 
hibit slavery in all the Territories of the United 
States, North as well as South of the Missouri 
Compromise line. I desire him to answer 
whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any 
more territory unless slavery is prohibited there- 
in. I want his answer to these questions. Your 
affirmative cheers in favor of this Abolition plat- 
form are not satisfactory. I ask Abraham Lin- 
coln to answer these questions, in order that 
when I trot him down to lower Egypt, I may 
put the same questions to him. My principles 
are the same everywhere. I can proclaim them 
alike in the North, the South, the East, and the 
West. My principles will apply wherever the 
Constitution prevails and the American flag 
waves. I desire to know whether Mr. Lin- 
coln's principles will bear transplanting from 
Ottawa to Jonesboro? I put these questions to 
him to-day distinctly, and ask an answer. I 
have a right to an answer, for I quote from the 
platform of the Republican party, made by him- 
self and others at the time that party was form- 
ed, and the bargain made by Lincoln to dissolve 
and kill the Old Whig party, and transfer its 
members, bound hand and foot, to the Abolition 
party, under the direction of Giddings and Fred 



1858] Speech at Ottawa 209 

Douglass. In the remarks I have made on this 
platform, and the position of Mr. Lincoln upon 
it, I mean nothing personally disrespectful or 
unkind to that gentleman. I have known him 
for nearly twenty-five years. There were many 
points of sympathy between us when we first 
got acquainted. We were both comparatively 
boys, and both struggling with poverty in a 
strange land. I was a school-teacher in the 
town of Winchester, and he a flourishing gro- 
cery-keeper in the town of Salem. He was 
more successful in his occupation than I was in 
mine, and hence more fortunate in this world's 
goods. Lincoln is one of those peculiar men who 
perform with admirable skill everything which 
they undertake. I made as good a school-teach- 
er as I could, and when a cabinet-maker I made 
a good bedstead and tables, although my old boss 
said I succeeded better with bureaus and secre- 
taries than with anything else; but I believe that 
Lincoln was always more successful in business 
than I, for his business enabled him to get into 
the legislature. I met him there, however, and 
had sympathy with him, because of the up-hill 
struggle we both had in life. He was then just 
as good at telling an anecdote as now. He could 
beat any of the boys wrestling, or running a 
foot-race, in pitching quoits or tossing a copper; 
could ruin more liquor than all the boys of the 



210 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

town together, and the dignity and impartiality 
with which he presided at a horse-race or fist- 
fight excited the admiration and won the praise 
of everybody that was present and participated. 
I sympathized with him because he was strug- 
gling with difficulties, and so was I. Mr. Lin- 
coln served with me in the legislature in 1836, 
when we both retired, and he subsided, or be- 
came submerged, and he was lost sight of as 
a public man for some years. In 1846, when 
Wilmot introduced his celebrated proviso, and 
the Abolition tornado swept over the country, 
Lincoln again turned up as a member of Con- 
gress from the Sangamon district. I was then 
in the Senate of the United States, and was 
glad to welcome my old friend and compan- 
ion. Whilst in Congress, he distinguished him- 
self by his opposition to the Mexican War, 
taking the side of the common enemy against 
his own country; and when he returned home 
he found that the indignation of the people 
followed him everywhere, and he was again 
submerged or obliged to retire into private 
life, forgotten by his former friends. He came 
up again in 1854, just in time to make this 
Abolition or Black Republican platform, in 
company with Giddings, Lovejoy, Chase, and 
Fred Douglass, for the Republican party to 
stand upon. Trumbull, too, was one of our own 



1858] Speech at Ottawa 211 

contemporaries. He was born and raised in old 
Connecticut, was bred a Federalist, but remov- 
ing to Georgia, turned Nullifier when nullifica- 
tion was popular, and as soon as he disposed of 
his clocks and wound up his business, migrated 
to Illinois, turned politician and lawyer here, 
and made his appearance in 1841 as a member of 
the legislature. He became noted as the author 
of the scheme to repudiate a large portion of 
the State debt of Illinois, which, if successful, 
would have brought infamy and disgrace upon 
the fair escutcheon of our glorious State. The 
odium attached to that measure consigned him 
to oblivion for a time. I helped to do it. I 
walked into a public meeting in the hall of the 
House of Representatives, and replied to his 
repudiating speeches, and resolutions were car- 
ried over his head denouncing repudiation, and 
asserting the moral and legal obligation of Illi- 
nois to pay every dollar of the debt she owed and 
every bond that bore her seal. Trumbull's ma- 
lignity has followed me since I thus defeated 
his infamous scheme. 

These two men having formed this combina- 
tion to Abolitionize the Old Whig party and 
the old Democratic party, and put themselves 
into the Senate of the United States, in pursu- 
ance of their bargain, are now carrying out that 
arrangement. Matheny states that Trumbull 



212 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

broke faith; that the bargain was that Lincoln 
should be the senator in Shields's place, and 
Trumbull was to wait for mine; and the story 
goes that Trumbull cheated Lincoln, having 
control of four or five Abolitionized Democrats 
who were holding over in the Senate; he would 
not let them vote for Lincoln, which obliged the 
rest of the Abolitionists to support him in order 
to secure an Abolition senator. There are a 
number of authorities for the truth of this be- 
sides Matheny, and I suppose that even Mr. 
Lincoln will not deny it. 

Mr. Lincoln demands that he shall have the 
place intended for Trumbull, as Trumbull 
cheated him and got his, and Trumbull is stump- 
ing the State traducing me for the purpose of 
securing the position for Lincoln, in order to 
quiet him. It was in consequence of this ar- 
rangement that the Republican convention was 
impaneled to instruct for Lincoln and nobody 
else, and it was on this account that they passed 
resolutions that he was their first, their last, and 
their only choice. Archy Williams was no- 
where, Browning was nobody, Wentworth was 
not to be considered; they had no man in the 
Republican party for the place except Lincoln, 
for the reason that he demanded that they should 
carry out the arrangement. 

Having formed this new party for the benefit 



1858] Speech at Ottawa 213 

of deserters from Whiggery and deserters from 
Democracy, and having laid down the Abolition 
platform which I have read, Lincoln now takes 
his stand and proclaims his Abolition doctrines. 
Let me read a part of them. In his speech at 
Springfield to the convention which nominated 
him for the Senate, he said: 

In my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall 
have been reached and passed. " A house divided 
against itself cannot stand." I believe this govern- 
ment cannot endure permanently half slave and half 
free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I 
do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it 
will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, 
or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will 
arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the 
public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the 
course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will 
push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all 
States — old as well as new, North as well as South. 

["Good," "Good," and Cheers.] 

I am delighted to hear you Black Republi- 
cans say "good." I have no doubt that doctrine 
expresses your sentiments, and I will prove to 
you now, if you will listen to me, that it is revo- 
lutionary and destructive of the existence of this 
government. Mr. Lincoln, in the extract from 
which I have read, says that this government 
cannot endure permanently in the same condi- 



2i4 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

tion in which it was made by its framers — divid- 
ed into free and slave States. He says that it 
has existed for about seventy years thus divided, 
and yet he tells you that it cannot endure per- 
manently on the same principles and in the same 
relative condition in which our fathers made it. 
Why can it not exist divided into free and slave 
States? Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Mad- 
ison, Hamilton, Jay, and the great men of that 
day made this government divided into free 
States and slave States, and left each State per- 
fectly free to do as it pleased on the subject of 
slavery. Why can it not exist on the same prin- 
ciples on which our fathers made it? They 
knew when they framed the Constitution that 
in a country as wide and broad as this, with such 
a variety of climate, production, and interest, 
the people necessarily required different laws 
and institutions in different localities. They 
knew that the laws and regulations which would 
suit the granite hills of New Hampshire would 
be unsuited to the rice-plantations of South Car- 
olina, and they therefore provided that each 
State should retain its own legislature and its 
own sovereignty, with the full and complete 
power to do as it pleased within its own limits, 
in all that was local and not national. One of 
the reserved rights of the States was the right 
to regulate the relations between master and ser- 



1858] Speech at Ottawa 215 

vant, on the slavery question. At the time the 
Constitution was framed, there were thirteen 
States in the Union, twelve of which were slave- 
holding States and one a free State. Suppose 
this doctrine of uniformity preached by Mr. 
Lincoln, that the States should all be free or all 
be slave, had prevailed, and what would have 
been the result? Of course, the twelve slave- 
holding States would have overruled the one free 
State, and slavery would have been fastened by 
a constitutional provision on every inch of the 
American republic, instead of being left, as our 
fathers wisely left it, to each State to decide for 
itself. Here I assert that uniformity in the local 
laws and institutions of the different States is 
neither possible nor desirable. If uniformity 
had been adopted when the government was es- 
tablished, it must inevitably have been the uni- 
formity of slavery everywhere, or else the uni- 
formity of negro citizenship and negro equality 
everywhere. 

We are told by Lincoln that he is utterly op- 
posed to the Dred Scott decision, and will not 
submit to it, for the reason that he says it de- 
prives the negro of the rights and privileges of 
citizenship. That is the first and main reason 
which he assigns for his warfare on the Supreme 
Court of the United States and its decision. I 
ask you, are you in favor of conferring upon the 



216 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

negro the rights and privileges of citizenship? 
Do you desire to strike out of our State constitu- 
tion that clause which keeps slaves and free ne- 
groes out of the State, and allow the free negroes 
to flow in, and cover your prairies with black 
settlements? Do you desire to turn this beauti- 
ful State into a free negro colony, in order that 
when Missouri abolishes slavery she can send 
one hundred thousand emancipated slaves into 
Illinois, to become citizens and voters, on an 
equality with yourselves? If you desire negro 
citizenship, if you desire to allow them to come 
into the State and settle with the white man, if 
you desire them to vote on an equality with your- 
selves, and to make them eligible to office, to 
serve on juries, and to adjudge your rights, then 
support Mr. Lincoln and the Black Republican 
party, who are in favor of the citizenship of the 
negro. For one, I am opposed to negro citizen- 
ship in any and every form. I believe this gov- 
ernment was made on the white basis. I be- 
lieve it was made by white men, for the benefit 
of white men and their posterity forever, and I 
am in favor of confining citizenship to white 
men, men of European birth and descent, instead 
of conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other 
inferior races. 

Mr. Lincoln, following the example and lead 
of all the little Abolition orators who go around 



1858] Speech at Ottawa 217 

and lecture in the basements of schools and 
churches, reads from the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence that all men were created equal, and 
then asks how can you deprive a negro of that 
equality which God and the Declaration of In- 
dependence award to him? He and they main- 
tain that negro equality is guaranteed by the 
laws of God, and that it is asserted in the Dec- 
laration of Independence. If they think so, of 
course they have a right to say so, and so vote. 
I do not question Mr. Lincoln's conscientious be- 
lief that the negro was made his equal, and hence 
is his brother; but for my own part, I do not re- 
gard the negro as my equal, and positively deny 
that he is my brother or any kin to me whatever. 
Lincoln has evidently learned by heart Parson 
Lovejoy's catechism. He can repeat it as well 
as Farnsworth, and he is worthy of a medal from 
Father Giddings and Fred Douglass for his 
Abolitionism. He holds that the negro was 
born his equal and yours, and that he was en- 
dowed with equality by the Almighty, and that 
no human law can deprive him of these rights 
which were guaranteed to him by the Supreme 
Ruler of the universe. Now, I do not believe 
that the Almighty ever intended the negro to 
be the equal of the white man. If he did, he 
has been a long time demonstrating the fact. 
For thousands of years the negro has been a race 



218 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

upon the earth, and during all that time, in all 
latitudes and climates, wherever he has wander- 
ed or been taken, he has been inferior to the 
race which he has there met. He belongs to an 
inferior race, and must always occupy an infer- 
ior position. I do not hold that because the ne- 
gro is our inferior therefore he ought to be a 
slave. By no means can such a conclusion be 
drawn from what I have said. On the contrary, 
I hold that humanity and Christianity both 
require that the negro shall have and enjoy every 
right, every privilege, and every immunity con- 
sistent with the safety of the society in which he 
lives. On that point, I presume, there can be 
no diversity of opinion. You and I are bound 
to extend to our inferior and dependent beings 
every right, every privilege, every facility and 
immunity consistent with the public good. The 
question then arises, what rights and privileges 
are consistent with the public good? This is 
a question which each State and each Territory 
must decide for itself — Illinois has decided it for 
herself. We have provided that the negro shall 
not be a slave, and we have also provided that 
he shall not be a citizen, but protect him in his 
civil rights, in his life, his person and his prop- 
erty, only depriving him of all political rights 
whatsoever, and refusing to put him on an equal- 
ity with the white man. That policy of Illinois 



1858] Speech at Ottawa 219 

is satisfactory to the Democratic party and to 
me, and if it were to the Republicans, there 
would then be no question upon the subject; but 
the Republicans say that he ought to be made 
a citizen, and when he becomes a citizen he be- 
comes your equal, with all your rights and priv- 
ileges. They assert the Dred Scott decision to 
be monstrous because it denies that the negro is 
or can be a citizen under the Constitution. 

Now, I hold that Illinois had a right to abol- 
ish and prohibit slavery as she did, and I hold 
that Kentucky has the same right to continue 
and protect slavery that 'Illinois had to abolish 
it. I hold that New York had as much right 
to abolish slavery as Virginia has to continue it, 
and that each and every State of this Union is 
a sovereign power, with the right to do as it 
pleases upon this question of slavery, and upon 
all its domestic institutions. Slavery is not the 
only question which comes up in this contro- 
versy. There is a far more important one to 
you, and that is, what shall be done with the 
free negro? We have settled the slavery ques- 
tion as far as we are concerned; we have pro- 
hibited it in Illinois forever, and in doing so, 
I think we have done wisely, and there is no 
man in the State who would be more strenuous 
in his opposition to the introduction of slavery 
than I would ; but when we settled it for our- 



220 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

selves, we exhausted all our power over that sub- 
ject. We have done our whole duty, and can 
do no more. V f e must leave each and every 
other State to decide for itself the same question. 
In relation to the policy to be pursued toward 
the free negroes, we have said that they shall 
not vote; whilst Maine, on the other hand, has 
said that they shall vote. Maine is a sovereign 
State, and has the power to regulate the quali- 
fications of voters within her limits. I would 
never consent to confer the right of voting and 
of citizenship upon a negro, but still I am not 
going to quarrel with Maine for differing from 
me in opinion. Let Maine take care of her 
own negroes, and fix the qualifications of her 
own voters to suit herself, without interfering 
with Illinois, and Illinois will not interfere with 
Maine. So with the State of New York. She 
allows the negro to vote provided he owns two 
hundred and fifty dollars' worth of property, but 
not otherwise. While I would not make any 
distinction whatever between a negro who held 
property and one who did not, yet if the sov- 
ereign State of New York chooses to make that 
distinction it is her business and not mine, and I 
will not quarrel with her for it. She can do 
as she pleases on this question if she minds her 
own business, and we will do the same thing. 
Now, my friends, if we will only act conscien- 



1858] Speech at Ottawa 221 

tiously and rigidly upon this great principle of 
popular sovereignty, which guarantees to each 
State and Territory the right to do as it pleases 
on all things, local and domestic, instead of Con- 
gress interfering, we will continue at peace one 
with another. Why should Illinois be at war 
with Missouri, or Kentucky with Ohio, or Vir- 
ginia, with New York, merely because their in- 
stitutions differ? Our fathers intended that our 
institutions should differ. They knew that the 
North and the South, having different climates, 
productions, and interests, required different in- 
stitutions. This doctrine of Mr. Lincoln, of 
uniformity among the institutions of the differ- 
ent States, is a new doctrine, never dreamed of 
by Washington, Madison, or the framers of this 
government. Mr. Lincoln and the Republican 
party set themselves up as wiser than these men 
who made this government, which has flourish- 
ed for seventy years under the principle of pop- 
ular sovereignty, recognizing the right of each 
State to do as it pleased. Under that principle, 
we have grown from a nation of three or four 
millions to a nation of about thirty millions of 
people; we have crossed the Allegheny moun- 
tains and filled up the whole Northwest, turn- 
ing the prairie into a garden, and building up 
churches and schools, thus spreading civilization 
and Christianity where before there was noth- 



222 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

ing but savage barbarism. Under tfiat princi- 
ple we have become, from a feeble nation, the 
most powerful on the face of the earth, and if 
we only adhere to that principle, we can go 
forward increasing in territory, in power, in 
strength, and in glory until the Republic of 
America shall be the north star that shall guide 
the friend of freedom throughout the civilized 
world. And why can we not adhere to the great 
principle of self-government upon which our in- 
stitutions were originally based? I believe that 
this new doctrine preached by Mr. Lincoln and 
his party will dissolve the Union if it succeeds. 
They are trying to array all the Northern States 
in one body against the South, to excite a sec- 
tional war between the free States and the slave 
States, in order that the one or the other may 
be driven to the wall. 

I am told that my time is out. Mr. Lincoln 
will now address you for an hour and a half, and 
I will then occupy a half hour in replying to 
him. 



Statue of Lincoln in Florence, Italy 

Reproduced from a Photograph by L. Powers of 
the Original Sculpture by H. Ball, in 1866. 



en 




\ 



V 



: *\U 




/ 



^ 



[858] Reply at Ottawa 223 



'Mr. Lincoln s Reply in the Ottawa Joint 
Debate. 

MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: When a 
man hears himself somewhat misrep- 
resented, it provokes him — at least, I 
find it so with myself; but when misrepresenta- 
tion becomes very gross and palpable, it is more 
apt to amuse him. The first thing I see fit to 
notice is the fact that Judge Douglas alleges, 
after running through the history of the old 
Democratic and the old Whig parties, that 
Judge Trumbull and myself made an arrange- 
ment in 1854 by which I was to have the place 
of General Shields in the United States Senate, 
and Judge Trumbull was to have the place of 
Judge Douglas. Now all I have to say upon 
that subject is that I think no man — not even 
Judge Douglas — can prove it, because it is not 
true. I have no doubt he is "conscientious" in 
saying it. As to those resolutions that he took 
such a length of time to read, as being the plat- 
form of the Republican party in 1854, I say I 
never had anything to do with them, and I think 
Trumbull never had. Judge Douglas cannot 
show that either of us ever did have anything 



224 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

to do with them. I believe this is true about 
those resolutions. There was a call for a con- 
vention to form a Republican party at Spring- 
field, and I think that my friend Mr. Lovejoy, 
who is here upon this stand, had a hand in it. 
I think this is true, and I think if he will remem- 
ber accurately he will be able to recollect that 
he tried to get me into it, and I would not go 
in. I believe it is also true that I went away 
from Springfield, when the convention was in 
session, to attend court in Tazewell County. It 
is true they did place my name, though without 
authority, upon the committee, and afterward 
wrote me to attend the meeting of the committee, 
but I refused to do so, and I never had anything 
to do with that organization. This is the plain 
truth about all matter of the resolutions. 

Now, about this story that Judge Douglas tells 
of Trumbull bargaining to sell out the old Dem- 
ocratic party, and Lincoln agreeing to sell out 
the Old Whig party, I have the means of know- 
ing about that; Judge Douglas cannot have; and 
I know there is no substance to it whatever. Yet 
I have no doubt he is "conscientious" about it. 
I know that after Mr. Lovejoy got into the leg- 
islature that winter, he complained of me that 
I had told all the Old Whigs of his district that 
the Old Whig party was good enough for them, 
and some of them voted against him because I 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 225 

told them so. Now, I have no means of totally 
disapproving such charges as this which the 
judge makes. A man cannot prove a negative, 
but he has a right to claim that when a man 
makes an affirmative charge, he must offer some 
proof to show the truth of what he says. I cer- 
tainly cannot introduce testimony to show the 
negative about things, but I have a right to 
claim that if a man says he knows a thing, then 
he must show how he knows it. I always have 
a right to claim this, and it is not satisfactory to 
me that he may be "conscientious" on the sub- 
ject. 

Now, gentlemen, I hate to waste my time on 
such things, but in regard to that general Aboli- 
tion tilt that Judge Douglas makes, when he says 
that I was engaged at that time in selling out 
and Abolitionizing the Old Whig party, I hope 
you will permit me to read a part of a printed 
speech that I made then at Peoria, which will 
show altogether a different view of the position 
I took in that contest of 1854. [Voice: "Put 
on your specs."] Yes, sir, I am obliged to do 
so. I am no longer a young man. 

This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. 
The foregoing history may not be precisely accurate 
in every particular; but I am sure it is sufficiently so 
for all the uses I shall attempt to make of it, and in 
it we have before us the chief materials enabling us 



226 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

to correctly judge whether the repeal of the Missouri 
Compromise is right or wrong. 

I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong; 
wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas 
and Nebraska — and wrong in its prospective prin- 
ciple, allowing it to spread to every other part of the 
wide world where men can be found inclined to take it. 

This declared indifference, but, as I must think, 
covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot 
but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice 
of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our 
republican example of its just influence in the world; 
enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibil- 
ity, to taunt us as hypocrites; causes the real friends 
of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially be- 
cause it forces so many really good men amongst 
ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental 
principles of civil liberty — criticizing the Declara- 
tion of Independence, and insisting that there is no 
right principle of action but self-interest. 

Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no 
prejudice against the Southern people. They are just 
what we would be in their situation. If slavery did 
not now exist among them, they would not introduce 
it. If it did now exist among us, we should not in- 
stantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North 
and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both 
sides who would not hold slaves under any circum- 
stances ; and others who would gladly introduce slav- 
ery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that 
some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 227 

and become tip-top Abolitionists; while some North- 
ern ones go South, and become most cruel slave- 
masters. 

When Southern people tell us they are no more 
responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I ac- 
knowledge the fact. When it is said that the insti- 
tution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of 
it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and ap- 
preciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for 
not doing what I should not know how to do myself. 
If all earthly power were given me, I should not know 
what to do as to the existing institution. My first 
impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them 
to Liberia — to their own native land. But a mo- 
ment's reflection would convince me that whatever 
of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in 
this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. 
If they were all landed there in a day, they would 
all perish in the next ten days; and there are not sur- 
plus shipping and surplus money enough in the world 
to carry them there in many times ten days. What 
then? Free them all, and keep them among us as 
underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their 
condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery 
at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me 
to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, 
and make them politically and socially our equals? 
My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine 
would, we well know that those of the great mass of 
white people will not. Whether this feeling accords 
with justice and sound judgment is not the sole ques- 



228 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

tion, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feel- 
ing, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely dis- 
regarded. We cannot make them equals. It does 
seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation 
might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I 
will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South. 

When they remind us of their constitutional rights, 
I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and 
fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the 
reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its 
stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into 
slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang 
an innocent one. 

But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more 
excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free 
territory, than it would for reviving the African slave 
trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing 
of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long 
forbidden the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly 
be distinguished on any moral principle; and the re- 
peal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses 
as that of the latter. 

I have reason to know that Judge Douglas 
knows that I said this. I think he has the an- 
swer here to one of the questions he put to me. 
I do not mean to allow him to catechize me un- 
less he pays back for it in kind. I will not an- 
swer questions one after another, unless he recip- 
rocates; but as he has made this inquiry, and 
I have answered it before, he has got it without 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 229 

my getting anything in return. He has got my 
answer on the fugitive-slave law. 

Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any 
great length, but this is the true complexion of 
all I have ever said in regard to the institution 
of slavery and the black race. This is the whole 
of it, and anything that argues me into his idea 
of perfect social and political equality with the 
negro is but a specious and fantastic arrange- 
ment of words, by which a man can prove a 
horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will 
say here, while upon this subject, that I have no 
purpose, either directly or indirectly, to interfere 
with the institution of slavery in the States where 
it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to 
do so, and I have no inclinaton to do so. I have 
no purpose to introduce political and social 
equality between the white and the black races. 
There is a physical difference between the two, 
which, in my judgment, will probably forever 
forbid their living together upon the footing of 
perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a 
necessity that there must be a difference, I, as 
well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race 
to which I belong having the superior position. 
I have never said anything to the contrary, but 
I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is 
no reason in the world why the negro is not en- 
titled to all the natural rights enumerated in 



230 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

the Declaration of Independence — the right to 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I 
hold that he is as much entitled to these as the 
white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is 
not my equal in many respects — certainly not in 
color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual en- 
dowment. But in the right to eat the bread, 
without the leave of anybody else, which his 
own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal 
of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living 
man. 

Now I pass on to consider one or two more of 
these little follies. The judge is woefully at 
fault about his early friend Lincoln being a 
"grocery-keeper." I don't know that it would 
be a great sin if I had been; but he is mistaken. 
Lincoln never kept a grocery anywhere in the 
world. It is true that Lincoln did work the lat- 
ter part of one winter in a little still-house up at 
the head of a hollow. And so I think my friend, 
the judge, is equally at fault when he charges 
me at the time when I was in Congress of having 
opposed our soldiers who were fighting in the 
Mexican War. The judge did not make his 
charge very distinctly, but I tell you what he 
can prove, by referring to the record. You re- 
member I was an Old Whig, and whenever the 
Democratic party tried to get me to vote that 
the war had been righteously begun by the Pres- 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 231 

ident, I would not do it. But whenever they 
asked for any money, or land-warrants, or any- 
thing to pay the soldiers there, during all that 
time, I gave the same vote that Judge Douglas 
did. You can think as you please as to whether 
that was consistent. Such is the truth ; and the 
judge has the right to make all he can out of it. 
But when he, by a general charge, conveys the 
idea that I withheld supplies from the soldiers 
who were fighting in the Mexican War, or did 
anything else to hinder the soldiers, he is, to say 
the least, grossly and altogether mistaken, as a 
consultation of the records will prove to him. 

As I have not used up so much of my time as 
I had supposed, I will dwell a little longer upon 
one or two of these minor topics upon which the 
judge has spoken. He has read from my speech 
in Springfield in which I say that "a house di- 
vided against itself cannot stand." Does the 
judge say it can stand? I don't know whether 
he does or not. The judge does not seem to be 
attending to me just now, but I would like to 
know if it is his opinion that a house divided 
against itself can stand. If he does, then there 
is a question of veracity, not between him and 
me, but between the judge and an authority of a 
somewhat higher character. 

Now, my friends, I ask your attention to this 
matter for the purpose of saying something se- 



232 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

riously. I know that the judge may readily 
enough agree with me that the maxim which 
was put forth by the Saviour is true, but he may 
allege that I misapply it; and the judge has a 
right to urge that in my application I do misap- 
ply it, and then I have a right to show that I 
do not misapply it. When he undertakes to say 
that because I think this nation, so far as the 
question of slavery is concerned, will all become 
one thing or all the other, I am in favor of bring- 
ing about a dead uniformity in the various States 
in all their institutions, he argues erroneously. 
The great variety of the local institutions in the 
States, springing from differences in the soil, 
differences in the face of the country, and in 
the climate, are bonds of union. They do not 
make "a house divided against itself," but they 
make a house united. If they produce in one sec- 
tion of the country what is called for by the wants 
of another section, and this other section can sup- 
ply the wants of the first, they are not matters of 
discord but bonds of union, true bonds of union. 
But can this question of slavery be considered as 
among these varieties in the institutions of the 
country? I leave it to you to say whether, in 
the history of our government, this institution of 
slavery has not always failed to be a bond of 
union, and, on the contrary, been an apple of 
discord and an element of division in the house. 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 233 

I ask you to consider whether, so long as the 
moral constitution of men's minds shall con- 
tinue to be the same, after this generation and 
assemblage shall sink into the grave, and an- 
other race shall arise with the same moral and 
intellectual development we have — whether, if 
that institution is standing in the same irrita- 
ting position in which it now is, it will not con- 
tinue an element of division? 

If so, then I have a right to say that, in regard 
to this question, the Union is a house divided 
against itself; and when the judge reminds me 
that I have often said to him that the institution 
of slavery has existed for eighty years in some 
States, and yet it does not exist in some others, 
I agree to the fact, and I account for it by look- 
ing at the position in which our fathers origin- 
ally placed it — restricting it from the new Terri- 
tories where it had not gone, and legislating to 
cut off its source by the abrogation of the slave- 
trade, thus putting the seal of legislation against 
its spread. The public mind did rest in the be- 
lief that it was in the course of ultimate extinc- 
tion. But lately, I think — and in this I charge 
nothing on the judge's motives — lately, I think, 
that he, and those acting with him, have placed 
that institution on a new basis, which looks to 
the perpetuity and nationalization of slavery. 
And while it is placed upon this new basis, I say, 



234 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

and I have said, that I believe we shall not have 
peace upon the question until the opponents of 
slavery arrest the further spread of it, and place 
it where the public mind shall rest in the belief 
that it is in the course of ultimate extinction ; or, 
on the other hand, that its advocates will push 
it forward until it shall become alike lawful in 
all the States, old as well as new, North as well 
as South. Now I believe if we could arrest the 
spread, and place it where Washington and Jef- 
ferson and Madison placed it, it would be in 
the course of ultimate extinction, and the public 
mind would, as for eighty years past, believe that 
it was in the course of ultimate extinction. The 
crisis would be past, and the institution might 
be let alone for a hundred years — if it should 
live so long — in the States where it exists, yet it 
would be going out of existence in the way best 
for both the black and the white races. [A voice : 
"Then do you repudiate popular sovereignty?"] 
Well, then, let us talk about popular sovereignty! 
What is popular sovereignty? Is it the right of 
the people to have slavery or not have it, as they 
see fit, in the Territories? I will state — and I 
have an able man to watch me — my understand- 
ing is that popular sovereignty, as now applied 
to the question of slavery, does allow the people 
of a Territory to have slavery if they want to, 
but does not allow them not to have it if they 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 235 

do not want it. I do not mean that if this vast 
concourse of people were in a Territory of the 
United States, any one of them would be obliged 
to have a slave if he did not want one; but I 
do say that, as I understand the Dred Scott de- 
cision, if any one man wants slaves, all the rest 
have no way of keeping that one man from hold- 
ing them. 

When I made my speech at Springfield, of 
which the judge complains, and from which he 
quotes, I really was not thinking of the things 
which he ascribes to me at all. I had no thought 
in the world that I was doing anything to bring 
about a war between the free and slave States. 
I had no thought in the world that I was doing 
anything to bring about a political and social 
equality of the black and white races. It never 
occurred to me that I was doing anything or fa- 
voring anything to reduce to a dead uniformity 
all the local institutions of the various States. 
But I must say, in all fairness to him, if he thinks 
I am doing something which leads to these bad 
results, it is none the better that I did not mean 
it. It is just as fatal to the country, if I have 
any influence in producing it, whether I intend 
it or not. But can it be true, that placing this 
institution upon the original basis — the basis up- 
on which our fathers placed it — can have any 
tendency to set the Northern and the Southern 



236 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

States at war with one another, or that it can 
have any tendency to make the people of Ver- 
mont raise sugar-cane because they raise it in 
Louisiana, or that it can compel the people of 
Illinois to cut pine logs on the Grand Prairie, 
where they will not grow, because they cut pine 
logs in Maine, where they do grow? The judge 
says this is a new principle started in regard to 
this question. Does the judge claim that he is 
working on the plan of the founders of the gov- 
ernment? I think he says in some of his 
speeches — indeed, I have one here now — that he 
saw evidence of a policy to allow slavery to be 
south of a certain line, while north of it it should 
be excluded, and he saw an indisposition on the 
part of the country to stand upon that policy, and 
therefore he set about studying the subject upon 
original principles, and upon original principles 
he got up the Nebraska bill! I am fighting it 
upon these "original principles" — fighting it in 
the JefTersonian, Washingtonian, and Madison- 
ian fashion. 

Now, my friends, I wish you to attend for a 
little while to one or two other things in that 
Springfield speech. My main object was to 
show, so far as my humble ability was capable 
of showing to the people of this country, what 
I believed was the truth — that there was a ten- 
dency, if not a conspiracy, among those who 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 237 

have engineered this slavery question for the last 
four or five years, to make slavery perpetual and 
universal in this nation. Having made that 
speech principally for that object, after arrang- 
ing the evidences that I thought tended to prove 
my proposition, I concluded with this bit of 
comment: 

We cannot absolutely know that these exact adap- 
tations are the result of pre-concert, but when we see 
a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which 
we know have been gotten out at different times and 
places, and by different workmen — Stephen, Frank- 
lin, Roger, and James, for instance; and when we see 
these timbers joined together, and see they exactly 
make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons 
and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and 
proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted 
to their respective places, and not a piece too many 
or too few, — not omitting even the scaffolding, — or 
if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the 
frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such 
piece in — in such a case we feel it impossible not to 
believe that Stephen and Franklin, and Roger and 
James, all understood one another from the beginning 
and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn 
before the first blow was struck. 

When my friend, Judge Douglas, came to 
Chicago on the 9th of July, this speech having 
been delivered on the 16th of June, he made an 



238 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

harangue there in which he took hold of this 
speech of mine, showing that he had carefully 
read it; and while he paid no attention to this 
matter at all, but complimented me as being a 
"kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman," not- 
withstanding I had said this, he goes on and de- 
duces, or draws out, from my speech this ten- 
dency of mine to set the States at war with one 
another, to make all the institutions uniform, and 
set the niggers and white people to marry to- 
gether. Then, as the judge had complimented 
me with these pleasant titles (I must confess to 
my weakness), I was a little "taken," for it came 
from a great man. I was not very much accus- 
tomed to flattery, and it came the sweeter to me. 
I was rather like the Hoosier with the ginger- 
bread, when he said he reckoned he loved it bet- 
ter than any other man, and got less of it. As 
the judge had so flattered me, I could not make 
up my mind that he meant to deal unfairly with 
me; so I went to work to show him that he mis- 
understood the whole scope of my speech, and 
that I really never intended to set the people 
at war with one another. As an illustration, the 
next time I met him, which was at Springfield, 
I used this expression, that I claimed no right 
under the Constitution, nor had I any inclina- 
tion, to enter into the slave States and interfere 
with the institutions of slavery. He says upon 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 239 

that: Lincoln will not enter into the slave 
States, but will go to the banks of the Ohio, on 
this side, and shoot over! He runs on, step by- 
step, in the horse-chestnut style of argument, un- 
til in the Springfield speech he says, "Unless he 
shall be successful in firing his batteries, until 
he shall have extinguished slavery in all the 
States, the Union shall be dissolved." Now I 
don't think that was exactly the way to treat "a 
kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman." I know 
if I had asked the judge to show when or where 
it was I had said, that if I didn't succeed in firing 
into the slave States until slavery should be ex- 
tinguished, the Union should be dissolved, he 
could not have shown it. I understand what he 
would do. He would say, "I don't mean to quote 
from you, but this was the result of what you 
say." But I have the right to ask, and I do ask 
now, did you not put it in such a form that an 
ordinary reader or listener would take it as an 
expression from me? 

In a speech at Springfield on the night of the 
17th, I thought I might as well attend to my 
business a little, and I recalled his attention as 
well as I could to this charge of conspiracy to 
nationalize slavery. I called his attention to 
the fact that he had acknowledged in my hearing 
twice that he had carefully read the speech; and, 
in the language of the lawyers, as he had twice 



240 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

read the speech, and still had put in no plea or 
answer, I took a default on him. I insisted that 
I had a right then to renew that charge of con- 
spiracy. Ten days afterward I met the judge 
at Clinton — that is to say, I was on the ground, 
but not in the discussion — and heard him make 
a speech. Then he comes in with his plea to this 
charge, for the first time, and his plea when put 
in, as well as I can recollect it, amounted to this: 
that he never had any talk with Judge Taney or 
the President of the United States with regard 
to the Dred Scott decision before it was made. 
I (Lincoln) ought to know that the man who 
makes a charge without knowing it to be true, 
falsifies as much as he who knowingly tells a 
falsehood; and lastly, that he would pronounce 
the whole thing a falsehood ; but he would make 
no personal application of the charge of false- 
hood, not because of any regard for the "kind, 
amiable, intelligent gentleman," but because of 
his own personal self-respect! I have under- 
stood since then (but [turning to Judge Douglas] 
will not hold the judge to it if he is not willing) 
that he has broken through the "self-respect," 
and has got to saying the thing out. The judge 
nods to me that it is so. It is fortunate for me 
that I can keep as good-humored as I do, when 
the judge acknowledges that he has been trying 
to make a question of veracity with me. I know 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 241 

the judge is a great man, while I am only a small 
man, but I feel that I have got him. I demur to 
that plea. I waive all objections that it was not 
filed till after default was taken, and demur to 
it upon the merits. What if Judge Douglas 
never did talk with Chief Justice Taney and the 
President before the Dred Scott decision was 
made; does it follow that he could not have had 
as perfect an understanding without talking as 
with it? I am not disposed to stand upon my 
legal advantage. I am disposed to take his denial 
as being like an answer in chancery, that he 
neither had any knowledge, information, nor be- 
lief in the existence of such a conspiracy. I am 
disposed to take his answer as being as broad as 
though he had put it in these words. And now, 
I ask, even if he had done so, have not I a right 
to prove it on him, and to offer the evidence of 
more than two witnesses, by whom to prove it; 
and if the evidence proves the existence of the 
conspiracy, does his broad answer, denying all 
knowledge, information, or belief, disturb the 
fact? It can only show that he was used by con- 
spirators, and was not a leader of them. 

Now, in regard to his reminding me of the 
moral rule that persons who tell what they do 
not know to be true, falsify as much as those who 
knowingly tell falsehoods. I remember the rule, 
and it must be borne in mind that in what I have 



242 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

read to you, I do not say that I know such a con- 
spiracy to exist. To that I reply, I believe it. 
If the judge says that I do not believe it, then he 
says what he does not know, and falls within 
his own rule that he who asserts a thing which 
he does not know to be true, falsifies as much as 
he who knowingly tells a falsehood. I want to 
call your attention to a little discussion on that 
branch of the case, and the evidence which 
brought my mind to the conclusion which I ex- 
pressed as my belief. If, in arraying that evi- 
dence, I had stated anything which was false or 
erroneous, it needed but that Judge Douglas 
should point it out, and I would have taken it 
back with all the kindness in the world. I do 
not deal in that way. If I have brought forward 
anything not a fact, if he will point it out, it 
will not even ruffle me to take it back. But if 
he will not point out anything erroneous in the 
evidence, is it not rather for him to show by a 
comparison of the evidence that I have reasoned 
falsely, than to call the "kind, amiable, intelli- 
gent gentleman" a liar? If I have reasoned to a 
false conclusion, it is the vocation of an able 
debater to show by argument that I have wan- 
dered to an erroneous conclusion. I want to ask 
your attention to a portion of the Nebraska bill 
which Judge Douglas has quoted : "It being the 
true intent and meaning of this act, not to legis- 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 243 

late slavery into any Territory or State, nor to 
exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people 
thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their 
domestic institutions in their own way, subject 
only to the Constitution of the United States." 
Thereupon Judge Douglas and others began to 
argue in favor of "popular sovereignty" — the 
right of the people to have slaves if they wanted 
them, and to exclude slavery if they did not want 
them. "But," said, in substance, a senator from 
Ohio (Mr. Chase, I believe), "we more than 
suspect that you do not mean to allow the people 
to exclude slavery if they wish to; and if you do 
mean it, accept an amendment which I propose 
expressly authorizing the people to exclude slav- 
ery." I believe I have the amendment here be- 
for me, which was offered, and under which the 
people of the Territory, through their proper 
representatives, might, if they saw fit, prohibit 
the existence of slavery therein. And now I state 
it as a fact, to be taken back if there is any mis- 
take about it, that Judge Douglas and those act- 
ing with him voted that amendment down. I 
now think that those men who voted it down had 
a real reason for doing so. They know what that 
reason was. It looks to us, since we have seen the 
Dred Scott decision pronounced, holding that, 
"under the Constitution the people cannot ex- 
clude slavery — I say it looks to outsiders, poor, 



244 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

simple, "amiable, intelligent gentlemen," as 
though the niche was left as a place to put that 
Dred Scott decision in, a niche which would 
have been spoiled by adopting the amendment. 
And now I say again, if this was not the reason, 
it will avail the judge much more to calmly and 
good-humoredly point out to these people what 
that other reason was for voting the amendment 
down, than swelling himself up to vociferate that 
he may be provoked to call somebody a liar. 

Again: there is in that same quotation from 
the Nebraska bill this clause : "It being the true 
intent and meaning of this bill not to legislate 
slavery into any Territory or State." I have 
always been puzzled to know what business the 
word "State" had in that connection. Judge 
Douglas knows. He put it there. He knows 
what he put it there for. We outsiders cannot 
say what he put it there for. The law they were 
passing was not about States, and was not making 
provision for States. What was it placed there 
for? After seeing the Dred Scott decision which 
holds that the people cannot exclude slavery 
from a Territory, if another Dred Scott decision 
shall come, holding that they cannot exclude it 
from a State, we shall discover that when the 
word was originally put there, it was in view of 
something which was to come in due time, we 
shall see that it was the other half of something. 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 245 

I now say again, if there is any different reason 
for putting it there, Judge Douglas, in a good- 
humored way, without calling anybody a liar, 
can tell what the reason was. 

When the judge spoke at Clinton, he came 
very near making a charge of falsehood against 
me. He used, as I found it printed in a news- 
paper, which, I remember was very nearly like 
the real speech, the following language : 

I did not answer the charge [of conspiracy] before 
for the reason that I did not suppose there was a man 
in America with a heart so corrupt as to believe such 
a charge could be true. I have too much respect for 
Mr. Lincoln to suppose he is serious in making the 
charge. 

I confess this is rather a curious view, that out 
of respect for me he should consider I was mak- 
ing what I deemed rather a grave charge in fun. 
I confess it strikes me rather strangely. But I 
let it pass. As the judge did not for a moment 
believe that there was a man in America whose 
heart was so "corrupt" as to make such a charge, 
and as he places me among the "men in Amer- 
ica" who have hearts base enough to make such 
a charge, I hope he will excuse me if I hunt out 
another charge very like this; and if it should 
turn out that in hunting I should find that other, 
and it should turn out to be Judge Douglas him- 



246 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

self who made it, I hope he will reconsider this 
question of the deep corruption of heart he has 
thought fit to ascribe to me. In Judge Douglas's 
speech of March 22, 1858, which I hold in my 
hand, he says: 

In this connection there is another topic to which 
I desire to allude. I seldom refer to the course of 
newspapers, or notice the articles which they publish 
in regard to myself; but the course of the Washing- 
ton " Union " has been so extraordinary, for the 
last two or three months, that I think it well enough 
to make some allusion to it. It has read me out of 
the Democratic party every other day, at least for 
two or three months, and keeps reading me out, and, 
as if it had not succeeded, still continues to read me 
out, using such terms as " traitor," " renegade," " de- 
serter," and other kind and polite epithets of that 
nature. 

Sir, I have no vindication to make of my Democ- 
racy against the Washington " Union," or any 
other newspaper. I am willing to allow my history 
and actions for the last twenty years to speak for 
themselves as to my political principles, and my 
fidelity to political obligations. The Washington 
" Union " has a personal grievance. When the editor 
was nominated for public printer I declined to vote 
for him, and stated that at some time I might give 
my reasons for doing so. Since I declined to give 
that vote, this scurrilous abuse, these vindictive and 
constant attacks, have been repeated almost daily on 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 247 

me. Will my friend from Michigan read the article 
to which I allude ? 

This is a part of the speech. You must excuse 
me from reading the entire article of the Wash- 
ington "Union," as Mr. Stuart read it for Mr. 
Douglas. The judge goes on and sums up, as I 
think, correctly: 

Mr. President, you here find several distinct propo- 
sitions advanced boldly by the Washington " Union " 
editorially, and apparently authoritatively, and any 
man who questions any of them is denounced as an 
Abolitionist, a Freesoiler, a fanatic. The proposi- 
tions are, first, that the primary object of all govern- 
ment at its original institution is the protection of 
person and property; second, that the Constitution of 
the United States declares that the citizens of each 
State shall be entitled to all the privileges and im- 
munities of citizens in the several States; and that, 
therefore, thirdly, all State laws, whether organic or 
otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State 
from settling in another with their slave property, and 
especially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations 
of the original intention of the government and Con- 
stitution of the United States; and, fourth, that the 
emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States was 
a gross outrage on the rights of property, inasmuch 
as it was involuntarily done on the part of the owner. 

Remember that this article w r as published in the 
11 Union " on the 17th of November, and on the 18th 



248 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

appeared the first article giving the adhesion of the 
" Union " to the Lecompton constitution. It was in 
these words: 

" Kansas and her Constitution. — The vexed 
question is settled. The problem is solved. The dead 
point of danger is passed. All serious trouble to 
Kansas affairs is over and gone." 

And a column nearly of the same sort. Then, when 
you come to look into the Lecompton constitution, 
you find the same doctrine incorporated in it which 
was put forth editorially in the " Union." What 
is it? 

" Article 7, Section 1. The right of property is 
before and higher than any constitutional sanction; 
and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and 
its increase is the same and as inviolable as the right 
of the owner of any property whatever." 

Then in the schedule is a provision that the con- 
stitution may be amended after 1864 by a two- 
thirds vote. 

" But no alteration shall be made to affect the right 
of property in the ownership of slaves." 

It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton 
constitution that they are identical in spirit with the 
authoritative article in the Washington " Union " of 
the day previous to its indorsement of this constitu- 
tion. 

I pass over some portions of the speech, and I 
hope that any one who feels interested in this 
matter will read the entire section of the speech, 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 249 

and see whether I do the judge injustice. He 
proceeds: 

When I saw that article in the " Union " of the 
17th of November, followed by the glorification of 
the Lecompton constitution on the 18th of Novem- 
ber, and this clause in the constitution asserting the 
doctrine that a State has no right to prohibit slavery 
within its limits, I saw that there was a fatal blow 
being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this 
Union. 

I stop the quotation there, again requesting 
that it may all be read. I have read all of the 
portion I desire to comment upon. What is this 
charge that the judge thinks I must have a very 
corrupt heart to make? It was a purpose on the 
part of certain high functionaries to make it im- 
possible for the people of one State to prohibit 
the people of any other State from entering it 
with their "property," so called, and making it 
a slave State. In other words, it was a charge 
implying a design to make the institution of slav- 
ery national. And now I ask your attention to 
what Judge Douglas has himself done here. I 
know he made that part of the speech as a reason 
why he had refused to vote for a certain man for 
public printer, but when we get at it, the charge 
itself is the very one I made against him, that he 
thinks I am so corrupt for uttering. Now, whom 



250 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

does he make that charge against? Does he 
make it against that newspaper editor merely? 
No; he says it is identical in spirit with the Le- 
compton constitution, and so the framers of that 
constitution are brought in with the editor of the 
newspaper in that "fatal blow being struck." He 
did not call it a "conspiracy." In his language 
it is a "fatal blow being struck." And if the 
words carry the meaning better when changed 
from a "conspiracy" into a "fatal blow being 
struck," I will change my expression and call it 
"fatal blow being struck." We see the charge 
made not merely against the editor of the 
" Union," but all the framers of the Lecompton 
constitution ; and not only so, but the article was 
an authoritative article. By whose authority? 
Is there any question but that he means it was by 
the authority of the President and his cabinet 
— the administration? Is there any sort of ques- 
tion but that he means to make that charge? 
Then there are the editors of the " Union," the 
framers of the Lecompton constitution, the 
President of the United States and his cabinet, 
and all the supporters of the Lecompton consti- 
tution, in Congress and out of Congress, who 
are all involved in this " fatal blow being 
struck." I commend to Judge Douglas's con- 
sideration the question of how corrupt a man's 
heart must be to make such a charge! 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 251 

Now, my friends, I have but one branch of 
the subject, in the little time I have left, to 
which to call your attention, and as I shall come 
to a close at the end of that branch, it is probable 
that I shall not occupy quite all the time allotted 
to me. 

Although on these questions I would like to 
talk twice as long as I have, I could not enter 
upon another head and discuss it properly with- 
out running over my time. I ask the attention 
of the people here assembled and elsewhere, to 
the course that Judge Douglas is pursuing every 
day as bearing upon this question of making 
slavery national. Not going back to the records, 
but taking the speeches he makes, the speeches 
he made yesterday and day before, and makes 
constantly all over the country — I ask your at- 
tention to them. 

In the first place, what is necessary to make 
the institution national? Not war. There is no 
danger that the people of Kentucky will 
shoulder their muskets, and, with a young 
nigger stuck on every bayonet, march into Illi- 
nois and force them upon us. There is no danger 
of our going over there and making war upon 
them. Then what is necessary for the national- 
ization of slavery? It is simply the next Dred 
Scott decision. It is merely for the Supreme 
Court to decide that no State under the Constitu- 



252 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

tion can exclude it, just as they have already 
decided that under the Constitution neither Con- 
gress nor the territorial legislature can do it. 
When that is decided and acquiesced in, the 
whole thing is done. This being true, and this 
being the way, as I think, that slavery is to be 
made national, let us consider what Judge Doug- 
las is doing every day to that end. In the first 
place, let us see what influence he is exerting on 
public sentiment. 

In this and like communities, public senti- 
ment is everything. With public sentiment, 
nothing can fail; without it, nothing can 
succeed. Consequenrly he who molds public 
sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes 
or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and 
decisions possible or impossible to be executed. 
This must be borne in mind, as also the addition- 
al fact that Judge Douglas is a man of vast in- 
fluence, so great that it is enough for many men 
to profess to believe anything when they once 
find out that Judge Douglas professes to believe 
it. Consider also the attitude he occupies at the 
head of a large party — a party which he claims 
has a majority of all the voters in the country. 

This man sticks to a decision which forbids 
the people of a territory to exclude slavery, and 
he does so not because he says it is right in itself, 
— he does not give any opinion on that, — but 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 253 

because it has been decided by the court, and, 
being decided by the court, he is, and you are, 
bound to take it in your political action as law 
— not that he judges at all of its merits, but be- 
cause a decision of the court is to him a " Thus 
saith the Lord." He places it on that ground 
alone, and you will bear in mind that thus com- 
mitting himself unreservedly to this decision, 
commits him to the next one just as firmly as to 
this. He did not commit himself on account of 
the merit or demerit of the decision, but it is a 
" Thus saith the Lord." The next decision, as 
much as this, will be a " Thus saith the Lord." 
There is nothing that can divert or turn him 
away from this decision. 

It is nothing that I point out to him that his 
great prototype, General Jackson, did not be- 
lieve in the binding force of decisions. It is 
nothing to him that Jefferson did not so believe. 
I have said that I have often heard him approve 
of Jackson's course in disregarding the decision 
of the Supreme Court pronouncing a national 
bank constitutional. He says I did not hear him 
say so. He denies the accuracy of my recollec- 
tion. I say he ought to know better than I, but I 
will make no question about this thing, though it 
still seems to me that I heard him say it twenty 
times. I will tell him though, that he now claims 
to stand on the Cincinnati platform, which affirms 



254 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

that Congress cannot charter a national bank, in 
the teeth of that old standing decision that Con- 
gress can charter a bank. And I remind him of 
another piece of history on the question of re- 
spect for judicial decisions, and it is a piece of 
Illinois history, belonging to a time when a large 
party to which Judge Douglas belonged were 
displeased with a decision of the Supreme Court 
of Illinois, because they had decided that a gov- 
ernor could not remove a secretary of state. You 
will find the whole story in Ford's " History of 
Illinois," and I know that Judge Douglas will 
not deny that he was then in favor of over- 
slaughing that decision by the mode of adding 
five new judges, so as to vote down the four old 
ones. Not only so, but it ended in the judge's 
sitting down on the very bench as one of the five 
new judges to break down the four old ones. It 
was in this way precisely that he got his title of 
judge. 

Now, when the judge tells me that men 
appointed conditionally to sit as members of a 
court will have to be catechised beforehand upon 
some subject, I say, " You know, judge ; you 
have tried it." When he says a court of this 
kind will lose the confidence of all men, will be 
prostituted and disgraced by such a proceeding, 
I say, " You know best, judge ; you have been 
through the mill." 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 255 

But I cannot shake Judge Douglas's teeth 
loose from the Dred Scott decision. Like some 
obstinate animal (I mean no disrespect) that 
will hang on when he has once got his teeth 
fixed, — you may cut off a leg, or you may tear 
away an arm, still he will not relax his hold. 
And so I may point out to the judge, and say that 
he is bespattered all over, from the beginning 
of his political life to the present time, with at- 
tacks upon judicial decisions, — I may cut off 
limb after limb of his public record, and strive 
to wrench from him a single dictum of the 
court, yet I cannot divert him from it. He 
hangs to the last to the Dred Scott decision. 
These things show there is a purpose strong as 
death and eternity for which he adheres to this 
decision, and for which he will adhere to all 
other decisions of the same court. [A Hiber- 
nian: "Give us something besides Drid 
Scott."] Yes; no doubt you want to hear some- 
thing that don't hurt. Now, having spoken of 
the Dred Scott decision, one more word and I 
am done. 

Henry Clay, my >eau ideal of a statesman, 
the man for whom I fought all my humble 
life — Henry Clay once said of a class of men 
who would repress all tendencies to liberty and 
ultimate emancipation, that they must, if they 
would do this, go back to the era of our inde- 



256 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 21 

pendence, and muzzle the cannon which thun- 
ders its annual joyous return; they must blow 
out the moral lights around us ; they must pene- 
trate the human soul, and eradicate there the 
love of liberty; and then, and not till then, could 
they perpetuate slavery in this country! To my 
thinking, Judge Douglas is, by his example and 
vast influence, doing that very thing in this com- 
munity when he says that the negro has nothing 
in the Declaration of Independence. Henry 
Clay plainly understood the contrary. Judge 
Douglas is going back to the era of our Revolu- 
tion, and to the extent of his ability muzzling 
the cannon which thunders its annual joyous re- 
turn. When he invites any people, willing to 
have slavery, to establish it, he is blowing out 
the moral lights around us. When he says he 
" cares not whether slavery is voted down or 
voted up" — that it is a sacred right of self- 
government — he is, in my judgment, penetra- 
ting the human soul and eradicating the light of 
reason and the love of liberty in this American 
people. 

And now I will only say that when, by all 
these means and appliances, Judge Douglas 
shall succeed in bringing public sentiment to an 
exact accordance with his own views — when 
these vast assemblages shall echo back all these 
sentiments — when they shall come to repeat his 



1858] Reply at Ottawa 257 

views and to avow his principles, and to say all 
that he says on these mighty questions — then it 
needs only the formality of the second Dred 
Scott decision, which he indorses in advance, to 
make slavery alike lawful in all the States — 
old as well as new, North as well as South. 

My friends, that ends the chapter. The judge 
can take his half hour. 



258 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 2: 



Mr. Douglas's Rejoinder in the Ottawa Joint 
Debate. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS: I will now oc- 
cupy the half hour allotted to me in re- 
plying to Mr. Lincoln. The first point 
to which I will call your attention is, as to 
what I said about the organization of the 
Republican party in 1854, and the plat- 
form that was formed on the 5th of October of 
that year, and I will then put the question to Mr. 
Lincoln, whether or not he approves of each 
article in that platform, and ask for a specific 
answer. I did not charge him with being a 
member of the committee which reported that 
platform. I charged that that platform was the 
platform of the Republican party adopted by 
them. The fact that it was the platform of the 
Republican party is not denied, but Mr. Lin- 
coln now says that although his name was on 
the committee which reported it, he does not 
think he was there, but thinks he was in Taze- 
well, holding court. Now, I want to remind 
Mr. Lincoln that he was at Springfield when 
that convention was held and those resolutions 
adopted. 



1858] Rejoinder at Ottawa 259 

The point I am going to remind Mr. Lincoln 
of is this: that after I had made my speech in 
1854, during the fair, he gave me notice that he 
was going to reply to me the next day. I was 
sick at the time, but I stayed over in Springfield 
to hear his reply and to reply to him. On that 
day this very convention, the resolutions adopted 
by which I have read, was to meet in the Senate 
chamber. He spoke in the hall of the House; 
and when he got through his speech — my recol- 
lection is distinct, and I shall never forget it — 
Mr. Codding walked in as I took the stand to 
reply, and gave notice that the Republican State 
convention would meet instantly in the Senate 
chamber, and called upon the Republicans to 
retire there and go into this very convention, 
instead of remaining and listening to me. 

In the first place, Mr. Lincoln was selected 
by the very men who made the Republican or- 
ganization on that day, to reply to me. He spoke 
for them and for that party, and he was the 
leader of the party; and on the very day he made 
his speech in reply to me, preaching up this same 
doctrine of negro equality under the Declara- 
tion of Independence, this Republican party 
met in convention. Another evidence that he 
was acting in concert with them is to be found 
in the fact that that convention waited an hour 
after its time of meeting to hear Lincoln's 



260 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

speech, and Codding, one of their leading men, 
marched in the moment Lincoln got through, 
and gave notice that they did not want to hear 
me, and would proceed with the business of the 
convention. Still another fact. I have here a 
newspaper printed at Springfield — Mr. Lin- 
coln's own town — in October, 1854, a few days 
afterward, publishing these resolutions charg- 
ing Mr. Lincoln with entertaining these senti- 
ments, and trying to prove that they were also 
the sentiments of Mr. Yates, then candidate for 
Congress. This has been published on Mr. 
Lincoln over and over again, and never before 
has he denied it. 

But, my friends, this denial of his that he did 
not act on the committee, is a miserable quibble 
to avoid the main issue, which is, that this Re- 
publican platform declares in favor of the un- 
conditional repeal of the fugitive-slave law. 
Has Lincoln answered whether he indorsed that 
or not? I called his attention to it when I first 
addressed you, and asked him for an answer, 
and I then predicted that he would not answer. 
How does he answer? Why, that he was not on 
the committee that wrote the resolutions. I then 
repeated the next proposition contained in the 
resolutions, which was to restrict slavery in those 
States in which it exists, and asked him whether 
he indorsed it. Does he answer yes or no? He 



1858] Rejoinder at Ottawa 261 

says in reply, " I was not on the committee at 
the time; I was up in Tazewell." The next 
question I put to him was, whether he was in 
favor of prohibiting the admission of any more 
slave States into the Union. I put the question 
to him distinctly, whether, if the people of the 
Territory, when they had sufficient population 
to make a State, should form their constitution 
recognizing slavery, he would vote for or 
against its admission. He is a candidate for the 
United States Senate, and it is possible, if he 
should be elected, that he would have to vote 
directly on that question. I asked him to answer 
me and you, whether he would vote to admit a 
State into the Union, with slavery or without 
it, as its own people might choose. He did not 
answer that question. He dodges that question 
also, under cover that he was not on the com- 
mittee at the time, that he was not present when 
the platform was made. I want to know, if he 
should happen to be in the Senate when a State 
applied for admission with a constitution ac- 
ceptable to her own people, whether he would 
vote to admit that State if slavery was one of its 
institutions. He avoids the answer. 

It is true he gives the Abolitionists to under- 
stand by a hint that he would not vote to admit 
such a State. And why? He goes on to say 
that the man who would talk about giving each 



262 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

State the right to have slavery or not, as it 
pleased, was akin to the man who would muzzle 
the guns which thundered forth the annual joy- 
ous return of the day of our independence. He 
says that that kind of talk is casting a blight on 
the glory of this country. What is the meaning 
of that? That he is not in favor of each State 
to have the right of doing as it pleases on the 
slavery question? I will put the question to him 
again and again, and I intend to force it out of 
him. 

Then again, this platform which was made 
at Springfield by his own party, when he was 
its acknowledged head, provides that Republi- 
cans will insist on the abolition of slavery in the 
District of Columbia, and I asked Lincoln 
specifically whether he agreed with them in that. 
[" Did you get an answer? "] He is afraid to 
answer it. He knows I will trot him down to 
Egypt. I intend to make him answer there, or 
I will show the people of Illinois that he does 
not intend to answer these questions. The con- 
vention to which I have been alluding goes a 
little further, and pledges itself to exclude slav- 
ery from all the Territories over which the Gen- 
eral Government has exclusive jurisdiction 
north of 36 30', as well as south. Now I want 
to know whether he approves that provision. I 
want him to answer, and when he does, I want 



1858] Rejoinder at Ottawa 263 

to know his opinion on another point, which is, 
whether he will redeem the pledge of this plat- 
form and resist the acquirement of any more 
territory unless slavery therein shall be forever 
prohibited. I want him to answer this last 
question. All of the questions I have put to 
him are practical questions — questions based 
upon the fundamental principles of the Black 
Republican party; and I want to know whether 
he is the first, last, and only choice of a party 
with whom he does not agree in principle. He 
does not deny that that principle was unani- 
mously adopted by the Republican party; he 
does not deny that the whole Republican party 
is pledged to it; he does not deny that a man who 
is not faithful to it is faithless to the Repub- 
lican party; and now I want to know whether 
that party is unanimously in favor of a man who 
does not adopt that creed and agree with them 
in their principles: I want to know whether the 
man who does not agree with them, and who is 
afraid to avow his differences, and who dodges 
the issue, is the first, last, and only choice of the 
Republican party. 

[A voice: "How about the conspiracy?"] 
Never mind, I will come to that soon 
enough. But the platform which I have read to 
you not only lays down these principles, but it 
adds: 



264 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

Resolved: That in furtherance of these principles 
we will use such constitutional and lawful means as 
shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and 
that we will support no man for office, under the 
General or State Government, who is not positively 
and fully committed to the support of these principles, 
and whose personal character and conduct are not a 
guaranty that he is reliable, and who shall not have 
abjured old party allegiance and ties. 

The Black Republican party stands pledged 
that they will never support Lincoln until he 
has pledged himself to that platform, but he 
cannot devise his answer; he has not made up 
his mind whether he will or not. He talked 
about everything else he could think of to oc- 
cupy his hour and a half, and when he could 
not think of anything more to say, without an 
excuse for refusing to answer these questions, he 
sat down long before his time was out. 

In relation to Mr. Lincoln's charge of con- 
spiracy against me, I have a word to say. In 
his speech to-day he quotes a playful part of his 
speech at Springfield, about Stephen, and 
James, and Franklin, and Roger, and says that 
I did not take exception to it. I did not answer 
it, and he repeats it again. I did not take ex- 
ception to this figure of his. He has a right to 
be as playful as he pleases in throwing his argu- 
ments together, and I will not object; but I did 



1858] Rejoinder at Ottawa 265 

take objection to his second Springfield speech, 
in which he stated that he intended his first 
speech as a charge of corruption or conspiracy 
against the Supreme Court of the United States, 
President Pierce, President Buchanan, and my- 
self. That gave the offensive character to the 
charge. He then said that when he made it he 
did not know whether it was true or not, but 
inasmuch as Judge Douglas had not denied it, 
although he had replied to the other parts of 
his speech three times, he repeated it as a charge 
of conspiracy against me, thus charging me with 
moral turpitude. When he put it in that form, 
I did say, that inasmuch as he repeated the 
charge simply because I had not denied it, I 
would deprive him of the opportunity of ever 
repeating it again by declaring that it was in all 
its bearings an infamous lie. He says he will 
repeat it until I answer his folly and nonsense 
about Stephen, and Franklin, and Roger, and 
Bob, and James. 

He studied that out — prepared that one sen- 
tence with the greatest care, committed it to 
memory, and put it in his first Springfield 
speech, and now he carries that speech around 
and reads that sentence to show how pretty it is. 
His vanity is wounded because I will not go into 
that beautiful figure of his about the building 
of a house. All I have to say is that I am not 



266 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

green enough to let him make a charge which' 
he acknowledges he does not know to be true, 
and then take up my time in answering it, when 
I know it to be false and nobody else knows it 
to be true. 

I have not brought a charge of moral turpi- 
tude against him. When he, or any other man, 
brings one against me, instead of disproving it, 
I will say that it is a lie, and let him prove it 
if he can. 

I have lived twenty-five years in Illinois. I 
have served you with all the fidelity and ability 
which I possess, and Mr. Lincoln is at liberty to 
attack my public action, my votes, and my con- 
duct; but when he dares to attack my moral 
integrity, by a charge of conspiracy between 
myself, Chief Justice Taney and the Supreme 
Court, and two Presidents of the United States, 
I will repel it. 

Mr. Lincoln has not character enough for in- 
tegrity and truth, merely on his own ipse dixit, 
to arraign President Buchanan, President 
Pierce, and nine judges of the Supreme Court, 
not one of whom would be complimented by 
being put on an equality with him. There is 
an unpardonable presumption in a man putting 
himself up before thousands of people, and pre- 
tending that his ipse dixit, without proof, with- 
out fact, and without truth, is enough to bring 



1858] Rejoinder at Ottawa 267 

down and destroy the purest and best of living 
men. 

Fellow-citizens, my time is fast expiring; I 
must pass on. Mr. Lincoln wants to know why 
I voted against Mr. Chase's amendment to the 
Nebraska bill. I will tell him. In the first 
place, the bill already conferred all the power 
which Congress had, by giving the people the 
whole power over the subject. Chase offered 
a proviso that they might abolish slavery, which 
by implication would convey the idea that they 
could prohibit by not introducing that institu- 
tion. General Cass asked him to modify his 
amendment, so as to provide that the people 
might either prohibit or introduce slavery, and 
thus make it fair and equal. Chase refused to 
so modify his proviso, and then General Cass 
and all the rest of us voted it down. Those facts 
appear on the journals and debates of Congress, 
where Mr. Lincoln found the charge, and if he 
had told the whole truth, there would have been 
no necessity for me to occupy your time in ex- 
plaining the matter. 

Mr. Lincoln wants to know why the word 
"State," as well as "Territory," was put into 
the Nebraska bill? I will tell him. It was 
put there to meet just such false arguments as 
he has been adducing. That first, not only the 
people of the Territories should do as they 



268 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 21 

pleased, but that when they come to be admit- 
ted as States, they should come into the Union 
with or without slavery, as the people deter- 
mined. I meant to knock in the head this Abo- 
lition doctrine of Mr. Lincoln's, that there shall 
be no more slave States, even if the people want 
them. And it does not do for him to say, or 
for any other Black Republican to say, that 
there is nobody in favor of the doctrine of no 
more slave States, and that nobody wants to in- 
terfere with the right of the people to do as 
they please. What was the origin of the Mis- 
souri difficulty and the Missouri Compromise? 
The people of Missouri formed a constitution 
as a slave State, and asked admission into the 
Union, but the Free-soil party of the North, 
being in a majority, refused to admit her be- 
cause she had slavery as one of her institutions. 
Hence this first slavery agitation arose upon a 
State and not upon a Territory, and yet Mr. 
Lincoln does not know why the word State was 
placed in the Kansas-Nebraska bill. The 
whole Abolition agitation arose on that doctrine 
of prohibiting a State from coming in with 
slavery or not, as it pleased, and that same doc- 
trine is here in this Republican platform of 
1854; it has never been repealed; and every 
Black Republican stands pledged by that plat- 
form never to vote for any man who is not in 



1858] Rejoinder at Ottawa 269 

favor of it. Yet Mr. Lincoln does not know 
that there is a man in the world who is in favor 
ot preventing a State from coming in as it 
pleases, notwithstanding the Springfield plat- 
form says that they, the Republican party, will 
not allow a State to come in under such circum- 
stances. He is an ignorant man. 

Now you see that upon these very points I 
am as far from bringing Mr. Lincoln up to the 
line as I ever was before. He does not want 
to avow his principles. I do want to avow 
mine, as clear as sunlight in midday. Democ- 
racy is founded upon the eternal principles of 
right. The plainer these principles are avowed 
before the people, the stronger will be the sup- 
port which they will receive. I only wish I 
had the power to make them so clear that they 
would shine in the heavens for every man, wo- 
man, and child to read. The first of those 
principles that I would proclaim would be in 
opposition to Mr. Lincoln's doctrine of uni- 
formity between the different States, and I 
would declare instead the sovereign right of 
each State to decide the slavery question as well 
as all other domestic questions for themselves, 
without interference from any other State or 
power whatsoever. 

When that principle is recognized you will 
have peace and harmony and fraternal feeling 



270 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

between all the States of this Union; until you 
do recognize that doctrine there will be sectional 
warfare agitating and distracting the country. 
What does Mr. Lincoln propose? He says that 
the Union cannot exist divided into free and 
slave States. If it cannot endure thus divided, 
then he must strive to make them all free or all 
slave, which will inevitably bring about a dis- 
solution of the Union. 

Gentlemen, I am told that my time is out, 
and I am obliged to stop. 

Letter to J. O. Cunningham 

Ottawa, August 22, 1858. 

'My Dear Sir: Yours of the 18th, signed as 
secretary of the Republican club, is received. 
In the matter of making speeches I am a good 
deal pressed by invitations from almost all quar- 
ters, and while I hope to be at Urban a some 
time during the canvass, I cannot yet say when. 
Can you not see me at Monticello on the 6th 
of September? 

Douglas and I, for the first time this canvass, 
crossed swords here yesterday; the fire flew 
some, and I am glad to know I am yet alive. 
There was a vast concourse of people — more 
than could get near enough to hear. 
Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 



Abraham Lincoln 

Reproduced from the Original Photograph b 
Brady, now in tlie Collection of Robert Coster. 



Lfr-t 










■ 



1858] Speech at Freeport 271 



Second Joint Debate at Freeport, Illinois, 
August 27, 1858 

Mr. Lincoln's Opening Speech. 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: On 
Saturday last, Judge Douglas and my- 
self first met in public discussion. He 
spoke one hour, I an hour and a half, and he 
replied for half an hour. The order is now 
reversed. I am to speak an hour, he an hour 
and a half, and then I am to reply for half 
an hour. I propose to devote myself dur- 
ing the first hour to the scope of what was 
brought within the range of his half-hour 
speech at Ottawa. Of course there was brought 
within the scope of that half-hour's speech some- 
thing of his own opening speech. In the course 
of that opening argument Judge Douglas pro- 
posed to me seven distinct interrogatories. In 
my speech of an hour and a half, I attended to 
some other parts of his speech, and incidentally, 
as I thought, answered one of the interroga- 
tories then. I then distinctly intimated to him 
that I would answer the rest of his interrogator- 
ies on condition only that he should agree to 
answer as many for me. He made no intima- 



272 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

tion at the time of the proposition, nor did he 
in his reply allude at all to that suggestion of 
mine. I do him no injustice in saying that he 
occupied at least half of his reply in dealing 
with me as though I had refused to answer his 
interrogatories. I now propose that I will 
answer any of the interrogatories, upon condi- 
tion that he will answer questions from me not 
exceeding the same number. I give him an 
opportunity to respond. The judge remains 
silent. I now say that I will answer his inter- 
rogatories, whether he answers mine or not; 
and that after I have done so, I shall propound 
mine to him. 

I have supposed myself, since the organiza- 
tion of the Republican party at Bloomington, 
in May, 1856, bound as a party man by the plat- 
forms of the party then and since. If in any 
interrogatories which I shall answer I go be- 
yond the scope of what is within these plat- 
forms, it will be perceived that no one is re- 
sponsible but myself. Having said this much, 
I will take up the judge's interrogatories as I 
find them printed in the Chicago "Times," and 
answer them seriatim. In order that there may 
be no mistake about it, I have copied the inter- 
rogatories in writing, and also my answers to 
them. The first one of these interrogatories is 
in these words: 



1858] Speech at Freeport 273 

Question 1. "I desire to know whether Lin- 
coln to-day stands as he did in 1854, in favor of 
the unconditional repeal of the fugitive-slave 
law?" 

Answer. I do not now, nor ever did, stand 
in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugi- 
tive-slave law. 

Question 2. "I desire him to answer 
whether he stands pledged to-day as he did 
in 1854, against the admission of any more 
slave States into the Union, even if the people 
want them?" 

Answer. I do not now, nor ever did, stand 
pledged against the admission of any more slave 
States into the Union. 

Q. 3. "I want to know whether he stands 
pledged against the admission of a new State 
into the Union with such a constitution as the 
people of that State may see fit to make?" 

A. I do not stand pledged against the ad- 
mission of a new State into the Union with such 
a constitution as the people of that State may 
see fit to make. 

Q. 4. "I want to know whether he stands 
to-day pledged to the abolition of slavery in the 
District of Columbia?" 

A. I do not stand to-day pledged to the 
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. 

Q. 5. "I desire him to answer whether he 



274 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave- 
trade between the different States?" 

A. I do not stand pledged to the prohibition 
of the slave-trade between the different States. 

Q. 6. "I desire to know whether he stands 
pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Teritor- 
ies of the United States, North as well as South 
of the Missouri Compromise line?" 

A. I am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged 
to a belief in the right and duty of Congress to 
prohibit slavery in all the United States Terri- 
tories. 

Q. 7. "I desire him to answer whether he 
is opposed to the acquisition of any new terri- 
tory unless slavery is first prohibited therein?" 

A. I am not generally- opposed to honest 
acquisition of territory; and, in any given case, 
I would or would not oppose such acquisition, 
accordingly as I might think such acquisition 
would or would not aggravate the slavery ques- 
tion among ourselves. 

Now, my friends, it will be perceived upon 
an examination of these questions and answers, 
that so far I have only answered that I was not 
pledged to this, that, or the other. The judge 
has not framed his interrogatories to ask me 
anything more than this, and I have answered 
in strict accordance with the interrogatories, 
and have answered truly that I am not pledged 



1858] Speech at Freeport 275 

at all upon any of the points to which I have 
answered. But I am not disposed to hang upon 
the exact form of his interrogatory. I am 
really disposed to take up at least some of these 
questions, and state what I really think upon 
them 

As to the first one, in regard to the fugitive- 
slave law, I have never hesitated to say, and I 
do not now hesitate to say, that I think, under 
the Constitution of the United States, the peo- 
ple of the Southern States are entitled to a con- 
gressional fugitive-slave law. Having said 
that, I have had nothing to say in regard to the 
existing fugitive-slave law, further than that I 
think it should have been framed so as to be 
free from some of the objections that pertain to 
it, without lessening its efficiency. And inas- 
much as we are not now in an agitation in re- 
gard to an alteration or modification of that 
law, I would not be the man to introduce it as 
a new subject of agitation upon the general 
question of slavery. 

In regard to the other question, of whether 
I am pledged to the admission of any more slave 
States into the Union, I state to you very frankly 
that I would be exceedingly sorry ever to be 
put in a position of having to pass upon that 
question. I should be exceedingly glad to 
know that there would never be another slave 



276 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

State admitted into the Union; but I must add, 
that if slavery shall be kept out of the Territor- 
ies during the territorial existence of any one 
given Territory, and then the people shall, hav- 
ing a fair chance and a clear field, when they 
come to adopt the Constitution, do such an ex- 
traordinary thing as to adopt a slave constitu- 
tion, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the 
institution among them, I see no alternative, if 
we own the country, but to admit them into the 
Union. 

The third interrogatory is answered by the 
answer to the second, it being, as I conceive, the 
same as the second. 

The fourth one is in regard to the abolition 
of slavery in the District of Columbia. In rela- 
tion to that, I have my mind very distinctly 
made up. I should be exceedingly glad to see 
slavery abolished in the District of Columbia. 
I believe that Congress possesses the constitu- 
tional power to abolish it. Yet as a member of 
Congress, I should not with my present views 
be in favor of endeavoring to abolish slavery in 
the District of Columbia unless it would be upon 
these conditions: First, that the abolition 
should be gradual; second, that it should be 
on a vote of the majority of qualified voters in 
the District; and third, that compensation 
should be made to unwilling owners. With 



1858] Speech at Freeport 277 

these three conditions, I confess I would be 
exceedingly glad to see Congress abolish slavery 
in the District of Columbia, and, in the lan- 
guage of Henry Clay, "sweep from our capital 
that foul blot upon our nation." 

In regard to the fifth interrogatory, I must 
say here that as to the question of the abolition 
of the slave-trade between the different States, 
I can truly answer, as I have, that I am pledged 
to nothing about it. It is a subject to which 
I have not given that mature consideration that 
would make me feel authorized to state a posi- 
tion so as to hold myself entirely bound by it. 
In other words, that question has never been 
prominently enough before me to induce me to 
investigate whether we really have the constitu- 
tional power to do it. I could investigate it if 
I had sufficient time to bring myself to a con- 
clusion upon that subject, but I have not done 
so, and I say so frankly to you here and to Judge 
Douglas. I must say, however, that if I should 
be of opinion that Congress does possess the 
constitutional power to abolish the slave-trade 
among the different States, I should still not 
be in favor of the exercise of that power unless 
upon some conservative principle as I conceive 
it, akin to what I have said in relation to the 
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. 

My answer as to whether I desire that slav- 



278 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

ery should be prohibited in all the Territories 
of the United States is full and explicit within 
itself, and cannot be made clearer by any com- 
ments of mine. 

So I suppose in regard to the question whether 
I am opposed to the acquisition of any more 
territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein, 
my answer is such that I could add nothing by 
way of illustration, or making myself better 
understood, than the answer which I have 
placed in writing. 

Now in all this the judge has me, and he has 
me on the record. I suppose he had flattered 
himself that I was really entertaining one set of 
opinions for one place and another set for an- 
other place — that I was afraid to say at one 
place what I uttered at another. What I am 
saying here I suppose I say to a vast audience 
as strongly tending to Abolitionism as any au- 
dience in the State of Illinois, and I believe I 
am saying that which, if it would be offensive 
to any persons and render them enemies to my- 
self, would be offensive to persons in this au- 
dience. 

I now proceed to propound to the judge the 
interrogatories so far as I have framed them. 
I will bring forward a new installment when I 
get them ready. I will bring them forward 
now, only reaching to number four. 



1858] Speech at Freeport 279 

The first one is: 

Question 1. If the people of Kansas shall, 
by means entirely unobjectionable in all other 
respects, adopt a State constitution, and ask ad- 
mission into the Union under it, before they 
have the requisite number of inhabitants accord- 
ing to the English bill, — some ninety-three 
thousand, — will you vote to admit them? 

Q. 2. Can the people of a United States 
Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish 
of any citizen of the United States, exclude slav- 
ery from its limits prior to the formation of a 
State constitution? 

Q. 3. If the Supreme Court of the United 
States shall decide that States cannot exclude 
slavery from their limits, are you in favor of 
acquiescing in, adopting, and following such 
decision as a rule of political action? 

Q. 4. Are you in favor of acquiring addi- 
tional territory, in disregard of how such ac- 
quisition may affect the nation on the slavery 
question? 

As introductory to these interrogatories which 
Judge Douglas propounded to me at Ottawa, 
he read a set of resolutions which he said Judge 
Trumbull and myself had participated in adopt- 
ing, in the first Republican State convention, 
held at Springfield, in October, 1854. He in- 
sisted that I and Judge Trumbull, and perhaps 



280 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

the entire Republican party, were responsible 
for the doctrines contained in the set of resolu- 
tions which he read, and I understand that it 
was from that set of resolutions that he deduced 
the interrogatories which he propounded to me, 
using these resolutions as a sort of authority for 
propounding those questions to me. 

Now I say here to-day that I do not answer his 
interrogatories because of their springing at all 
from that set of resolutions which he read. I an- 
swered them because Judge Douglas thought fit 
to ask them. I do not now, nor ever did, recog- 
nize any responsibility upon myself in that set 
of resolutions. 

When I replied to him on that occasion, I 
assured him that I never had anything to do 
with them. I repeat here to-day, that I never in 
any possible form had anything to do with that 
set of resolutions. It turns out, I believe, that 
those resolutions were never passed at any con- 
vention held in Springfield. It turns out that 
they were never passed at any convention or any 
public meeting that I had any part in 

I believe it turns out, in addition to all this, 
that there was not, in the fall of 1854, an Y 
convention holding a session in Springfield 
calling itself a Republican State convention; 
yet it is true there was a convention, or assem- 
blage of men calling themselves a convention, 



1858] Speech at Freeport 281 

at Springfield, that did pass some resolutions. 
But so little did I really know of the proceed- 
ings of that convention, or what set of resolu- 
tions they had passed, though having a general 
knowledge that there had been such an assem- 
blage of men there, that when Judge Douglas 
read the resolutions, I really did not know but 
that they had been the resolutions passed then 
and there. I did not question that they were 
the resolutions adopted. For I could not bring 
myself to suppose that Judge Douglas could 
say what he did upon this subject without know- 
ing that it was true. I contented myself, on that 
occasion, with denying, as I truly could, all con- 
nection with them, not denying or affirming 
whether they were passed at Springfield. Now 
it turns out that he had got hold of some reso- 
lutions passed at some convention or public 
meeting in Kane County. 

I wish to say here that I don't conceive that in 
any fair and just mind this discovery relieves me 
at all. I had just as much to do with the con- 
vention in Kane County as that at Springfield. 
I am just as much responsible for the resolutions 
at Kane County as those at Springfield, the 
amount of the responsibility being exactly noth- 
ing in either case; no more than there would be 
in regard to a set of resolutions passed in the 
moon. 



282 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

I allude to this extraordinary matter in this 
canvass for some further purpose than anything 
yet advanced. Judge Douglas did not make his 
statement upon that occasion as matters that he 
believed to be true, but he stated them roundly 
as being true, in such form as to pledge his 
veracity for their truth. 

When the whole matter turns out as it does, 
and when we consider who Judge Douglas is, — 
that he is a distinguished senator of the United 
States; that he has served nearly twelve years 
as such; that his character is not at all limited 
as an ordinary senator of the United States, but 
that his name has become of world-wide re- 
nown, — it is most extraordinary that he should 
so far forget all the suggestions of justice to an 
adversary, or of prudence to himself, as to ven- 
ture upon the assertion of that which the slight- 
est investigation would have shown him to be 
wholly false. I can only account for his having 
done so upon the supposition that that evil 
genius which has attended him through his life, 
giving to him an apparent astonishing prosper- 
ity, such as to lead very many good men to doubt 
there being any advantage in virtue over vice — 
I say I can only account for it on the supposition 
that that evil genius has at last made up its mind 
to forsake him. 

And I may add that another extraordinary 



1858] Speech at Freeport 283 

feature of the judge's conduct in this canvass — 
made more extraordinary by this incident — is, 
that he is in the habit, in almost all the speeches 
he makes, of charging falsehood upon his ad- 
versaries, myself and others. I now ask 
whether he is able to find in anything that Judge 
Trumbull, for instance, has said, or in anything 
that I have said, a justification at all compared 
with what we have, in this instance, for that sort 
of vulgarity. 

I have been in the habit of charging as a mat- 
ter of belief on my part, that, in the introduction 
of the Nebraska bill into Congress, there was 
a conspiracy to make slavery perpetual and na- 
tional. I have arranged from time to time the 
evidence which establishes and proves the truth 
of this charge. I recurred to this charge at Ot- 
tawa. I shall not now have time to dwell upon 
it at very great length ; but inasmuch as Judge 
Douglas in his reply of half an hour made some 
points upon me in relation to it, I propose no- 
ticing a few of them. 

The judge insists that, in the first speech I 
made, in which I very distinctly made that 
charge, he thought for a good while I was in 
fun — that I was playful — that I was not sincere 
about it— and that he only grew angry and some- 
what excited when he found that I insisted upon 
it as a matter of earnestness. He says he char- 



284 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

acterized it as a falsehood as far as I impli- 
cated his moral character in that transaction. 
Well, I did not know, till he presented that 
view, that I had implicated his moral character. 
He is very much in the habit, when he argues 
me up into a position I never thought of occu- 
pying, of very cozily saying he has no doubt 
Lincoln is "conscientious" in saying so. He 
should remember that I did not know but what 
he was altogether "conscientious" in that 
matter. 

I can conceive it possible for men to con- 
spire to do a good thing, and I really find noth- 
ing in Judge Douglas's course of arguments that 
is contrary to or inconsistent with his belief of 
a conspiracy to nationalize and spread slavery 
as being a good and blessed thing, and so I hope 
he will understand that I do not at all question 
but that in all this matter he is entirely "con- 
scientious." 

But to draw your attention to one of the points 
I made in this case, beginning at the beginning. 
When the Nebraska bill was introduced, or a 
short time afterward, by an amendment, I be- 
lieve, it was provided that it must be considered 
"the true intent and meaning of this act not 
to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, 
or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the peo- 
ple thereof perfectly free to form and regulate 



1858] Speech at Freeport 285 

their own domestic institutions in their own 
way, subject only to the Constitution of the 
United States." I have called his attention to 
the fact that when he and some others be- 
gan arguing that they were giving an in- 
creased degree of liberty to the people in 
the Territories over and above what they for- 
merly had on the question of slavery, a ques- 
tion was raised whether the law was enacted 
to give such unconditional liberty to the people: 
and to test the sincerity of this mode of argu- 
ment, Mr. Chase, of Ohio, introduced an 
amendment, in which he made the law — if the 
amendment were adopted — expressly declare 
that the people of the Territory should have the 
power to exclude slavery if they saw fit. 

I have asked attention also to the fact that 
Judge Douglas, and those who acted with him, 
voted that amendment down, notwithstanding it 
expressed exactly the thing they said was the 
true intent and meaning of the law. 

I have called attention to the fact that in 
subsequent times a decision of the Su- 
preme Court has been made in which it 
has been declared that a Territorial Legislature 
has no constitutional right to exclude slavery. 
And I have argued and said that for men who 
did intend that the people of the Territory 
should have the right to exclude slavery abso- 



286 Abraham Lincoln C Au s- 27 

lutely and unconditionally, the voting down of 
Chase's amendment is wholly inexplicable. It 
is a puzzle — a riddle. But I have said that 
with men who did look forward to such a deci- 
sion, or who had it in contemplation that such a 
decision of the Supreme Court would or might 
be made, the voting down of that amendment 
would be perfectly rational and intelligible. It 
would keep Congress from coming in collision 
with the decision when it was made. Anybody 
can conceive that if there was an intention ot 
expectation that such a decision was to follow, 
it would not be a very desirable party attitude to 
get into for the Supreme Court — all or nearly 
all its members belonging to the same party — 
to decide one way, when the party in Congress 
had decided the other way. Hence it would be 
very rational for men expecting such a decision 
to keep the niche in that law clear for it. 

After pointing this out, I tell Judge Douglas 
that it looks to me as though here was the reason 
why Chase's amendment was voted down. I tell 
him that as he did it, and knows why he did it, 
if it was done for a reason different from this, 
he knows what that reason was, and can tell us 
what it was. I tell him, also, it will be vastly 
more satisfactory to the country for him to give 
some other plausible, intelligible reason why it 
was voted down than to stand upon his dignity 



1858] Speech at Freeport 287 

and call people liars. Well, on Saturday he 
did make his answer, and what do you think it 
was? He says if I had only taken upon myself 
to tell the whole truth about that amendment 
of Chase's, no explanation would have been 
necessary on his part — or words to that effect. 
Now I say here that I am quite unconscious of 
having suppressed anything material to the case, 
and I am very frank to admit if there is any 
sound reason other than that which appeared to 
me material, it is quite fair for him to present it. 
What reason does he propose? That when 
Chase came forward with his amendment ex- 
pressly authorizing the people to exclude slav- 
ery from the limits of every Territory, General 
Cass proposed to Chase, if he (Chase) would 
add to his amendment that the people should 
have the power to introduce or exclude, they 
would let it go. 

This is substantially all of his reply. And 
because Chase would not do that they voted his 
amendment down. Well, it turns out, I be- 
live, upon examination, that General Cass took 
some part in the little running debate upon that 
amendment, and then ran away and did not 
vote on it at all. Is not that the fact? So con- 
fident, as I think, was General Cass that there 
was a snake somewhere about, he chose to run 
away from the whole thing. This is an in- 



288 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

ference I draw from the fact that though he 
took part in the debate his name does not appear 
in the ayes and noes. But does Judge Douglas's 
reply amount to a satisfactory answer? [Cries 
of "Yes," "Yes," and "No," "No."] There is 
some little difference of opinion here. But I 
ask attention to a few more views bearing on the 
question of whether it amounts to a satisfactory 
answer. 

The men who were determined that that 
amendment should not get into the bill, and 
spoil the place where the Dred Scott decision 
was to come in, sought an excuse to get rid of 
it somewhere. One of these ways — one of these 
excuses — was to ask Chase to add to his pro- 
posed amendment a provision that the people 
might introduce slavery if they wanted to. They 
very well knew Chase would do no such thing 
— that Mr. Chase was one of the men differing 
from them on the broad principle of his insist- 
ing that freedom was better than slavery — a man 
who would not consent to enact a law penned 
with his own hand, by which he was made to 
recognize slavery on the one hand and liberty 
on the other as precisely equal; and when they 
insisted on his doing this, they very well knew 
they insisted on that which he would not for a 
moment think of doing, and that they were only 
bluffing him. I believe — I have not, since he 



1858] Speech at Freeport 289 

made his answer, had a chance to examine the 
journals or "Congressional Globe," and there- 
fore speak from memory — I believe the state of 
the bill at that time, according to parliamentary 
rules, was such that no member could propose 
an additional amendment to Chase's amend- 
ment. I rather think this is the truth — the 
judge shakes his head. Very well. I would 
like to know then, if they wanted Chase's 
amendment fixed over, why somebody else could 
not have offered to do it? If they wanted it 
amended, why did they not offer the amend- 
ment? Why did they stand there taunting and 
quibbling at Chase? Why did they not put it in 
themselves? 

But to put it on the other ground: suppose 
that there was such an amendment offered, 
and Chase's was an amendment to an amend- 
ment; until one is disposed of by parlia- 
mentary law, you cannot pile another on. Then 
all these gentlemen had to do was to vote Chase's 
on, and then, in the amended form in which 
the whole stood, add their own amendment to 
it if they wanted to put it in that shape. This 
was all they were obliged to do, and the ayes 
and noes show that there were thirty-six who 
voted it down, against ten who voted in favor 
of it. The thirty-six held entire sway and con- 
trol. They could in some form or other have 



290 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

put that bill in the exact shape they wanted. 
If there was a rule preventing their amending 
it at the time, they could pass that, and then, 
Chase's amendment being merged, put it in the 
shape they wanted. They did not choose to do 
so, but they went into a quibble with Chase to 
get him to add what they knew he would not 
add, and because he would not, they stand upon 
that flimsy pretext for voting down what they 
argued was the meaning and intent of their own 
bill. They left room thereby for this Dred 
Scott decision, which goes very far to make 
slavery national throughout the United States. 
I pass one or two points I have because my 
time will very soon expire, but I must be al- 
lowed to say that Judge Douglas recurs again, 
as he did upon one or two other occasions, to 
the enormity of Lincoln — an insignificant in- 
dividual like Lincoln — upon his ipse dixit 
charging a conspiracy upon a large number of 
members of Congress, the Supreme Court, and 
two President, to nationalize slavery. I want 
to say that, in the first place, I have made no 
charge of this sort upon my ipse dixit. I have 
only arrayed the evidence tending to prove it, 
and presented it to the understanding of others, 
saying what I think it proves, but giving you 
the means of judging whether it proves it or not. 
This is precisely what I have done. I have 



1858] Speech at Freeport 291 

not placed it upon my ipse dixit at all. On 
this occasion, I wish to recall his attention to a 
piece of evidence which I brought forward at 
Ottawa on Saturday, showing that he had made 
substantially the same charge against substan- 
tially the same persons, excluding his dear self 
from the category. I ask him to give some at- 
tention to the evidence which I brought for- 
ward, that he himself had discovered a "fatal 
blow being struck" against the right of the peo- 
ple to exclude slavery from their limits, which 
fatal blow he assumed as in evidence in an 
article in the Washington "Union," published 
"by authority." 

I ask by whose authority? He discovers a 
similar or identical provision in the Lecompton 
constitution. Made by whom? The framers of 
that constitution. Advocated by whom? By all 
the members of the party in the nation, who ad- 
vocated the introduction of Kansas into the 
Union under the Lecompton constitution. 

I have asked his attention to the evidence 
that he arrayed to prove that such a fatal blow 
was being struck, and to the facts which he 
brought forward in support of that charge — 
being identical with the one which he thinks 
so villainous in me. He pointed it not at a 
newspaper editor merely, but at the President 
and his cabinet, and the members of Congress 



292 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

advocating the Lecompton constitution, and 
those framing that instrument. I must again 
be permitted to remind him, that although my 
ipse dixit may not be as great as his, yet it some- 
what reduces the force of his calling my atten- 
tion to the enormity of my making a like charge 
against him. 

Go on, Judge Douglas. 



Abraham Lincoln 

Reproduced from an Ambrotype taken by C. Jack- 
son, in Pittsfield, Illinois, October- I, 
during the Lincoln-Douglas Dcbati 
Original is owned by Miss II. Gilmer, 
of Pittsfield, Illinois. 



^**nif 




1858] Reply at Freeport 293 



Mr. Douglas's Reply in the Freeport Joint 
Debate. 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: The 
silence with which you have listened to 
Mr. Lincoln during his hour is credit- 
able to this vast audience, composed of men of 
various political parties. Nothing is more 
honorable to any large mass of people assembled 
for the purpose of a fair discussion, than that 
kind and respectful attention that is yielded 
not only to your political friends, but to those 
who are opposed to you in politics. 

I am glad that at last I have brought Mr. 
Lincoln to the conclusion that he had better 
define his position on certain political questions 
to which I called his attention at Ottawa. He 
there showed no disposition, no inclination, to 
answer them. I did not present idle questions 
for him to answer merely for my gratification. 
I laid the foundation for those interrogatories 
by showing that they constituted the platform 
of the party whose nominee he is for the Senate. 
I did not presume that I had the right to cate- 
chize him as I saw proper, unless I showed 
that his party, or a majority of it, stood upon the 



294 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

platform, and were in favor of the propositions 
upon which my questions were based. I desired 
simply to know, inasmuch as he had been nomi- 
nated as the first, last, and only choice of his 
party, whether he concurred in the platform 
which that party had adopted for its govern- 
ment. In a few moments I will proceed to re- 
view the answers which he has given to these 
interrogatories, but in order to relieve his anx- 
iety I will first respond to these which he has 
presented to me. Mark you, he has not pre- 
sented interrogatories which have ever received 
the sanction of the party with which I am act- 
ing, and hence he has no other foundation for 
them than his own curiosity. 

First, he desires to know if the people of Kan- 
sas shall form a constitution by means entirely 
proper and unobjectionable and ask admis- 
sion into the Union as a State, before they have 
the requisite population for a member of Con- 
gress, whether I will vote for that admission. 
Well, now, I regret exceedingly that he did not 
answer that interrogatory himself before he put 
it to me, in order that we might understand, 
and not be left to infer, on which side he is. 
Mr. Trumbull, during the last session of Con- 
gress, voted from the beginning to the end 
against the admission of Oregon, although a 
free State, because she had not the requisite 



1858] Reply at Freeport 295 

population for a member of Congress. Mr. 
Trumbull would not consent, under any circum- 
stances, to let a State, free or slave, come into 
the Union until it had the requisite population. 
As Mr. Trumbull is in the field, fighting for 
Mr. Lincoln, I would like to have Mr. Lincoln 
answer his own question and tell me whether he 
is fighting Trumbull on that issue or not. But 
I will answer his question. In reference to 
Kansas, it is my opinion that as she has popu- 
lation enough to constitute a slave State, she 
has people enough for a free State. I will not 
make Kansas an exceptional case to the other 
States of the Union. I hold it to be a sound 
rule of universal application to require a Terri- 
tory to contain the requisite population for a 
member of Congress, before it is admitted as a 
State into the Union. I made that proposition 
in the Senate in 1856, and I renewed it during 
the last session, in a bill providing that no Ter- 
ritory of the United States should form a con- 
stitution and apply for admission until it had 
the requisite population. On another occasion 
I proposed that neither Kansas, nor any other 
Territory, should be admitted until it had the 
requisite population. Congress did not adopt 
any of my propositions containing this general 
rule, but did make an exception of Kansas. I 
will stand by that exception. Either Kansas 



296 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

must come in as a free State, with whatever 
population she may have, or the rule must be 
applied to all the other Territories alike. I 
therefore answer at once that, it having been 
decided that Kansas has people enough for a 
slave State, I hold that she has enough for a 
free State. I hope Mr. Lincoln is satisfied 
with my answer; and now I would like to get 
his answer to his own interrogatory — whether 
or not he will vote to admit Kansas before she 
has the requisite population. I want to know 
whether he will vote to admit Oregon before 
that Territory has the requisite population. 
Mr. Trumbull will not, and the same reason 
that commits Mr. Trumbull against the admis- 
sion of Oregon commits him against Kansas, 
even if she should apply for admission as a free 
State. If there is any sincerity, any truth, in 
the argument of Mr. Trumbull in the Senate, 
against the admission of Oregon because she had 
not 93,420 people, although her population was 
larger than that of Kansas, he stands pledged 
against the admission of both Oregon and 
Kansas until they have 93,420 inhabitants. I 
would like Mr. Lincoln to answer this question. 
I would like him to take his own medicine. If 
he differs with Mr. Trumbull, let him answer 
his argument against the admission of Oregon, 
instead of poking questions at me. 



1858] Reply at Freeport 297 

The next question propounded to me by Mr. 
Lincoln is: Can the people of a Territory in 
any lawful way, against the wishes of any citi- 
zen of the United States, exclude slavery from 
their limits prior to the formation of a State 
constitution? I answer emphatically, as Mr. 
Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times 
from every stump in Illinois, that in my opin- 
ion the people of a Territory can, by lawful 
means, exclude slavery from their limits prior 
to the formation of a State constitution. Mr. 
Lincoln knew that I had answered that question 
over and over again. He heard me argue the 
Nebraska bill on that principle all over the 
State in 1854, in 1855, and in 1856, and he has 
no excuse for pretending to be in doubt as to 
my position on that question. It matters not 
what way the Supreme Court may hereafter 
decide as to the abstract question whether slav- 
ery may or may not go into a Territory under 
the Constitution, the people have the lawful 
means to introduce it or exclude it as they please, 
for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day 
or an hour anywhere unless it is supported by 
the local police regulations. Those police 
regulations can only be established by the 
local legislature, and if the people are opposed 
to slavery they will elect representatives 
to that body who will by unfriendly legislation 



298 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

effectually prevent the introduction of it into 
their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for 
it, their legislation will favor its extension. 
Hence, no matter what the decision of the Su- 
preme Court may be on that abstract question, 
still the right of the people to make a slave Ter- 
ritory or a free Territory is perfect and com- 
plete under the Nebraska bill. I hope Mr. 
Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that 
point. 

In this connection I will notice the charge 
which he has introduced in relation to Mr. 
Chase's amendment. I thought that I had 
chased that amendment out of Mr. Lincoln's 
brain at Ottawa; but it seems that still haunts 
his imagination, and he is not yet satisfied. I 
had supposed that he would be ashamed to press 
that question further. He is a lawyer, and has 
been a member of Congress, and has occupied 
his time and amused you by telling you about 
parliamentary proceedings. He ought to have 
known better than to try to palm off his miser- 
able impositions upon this intelligent audience. 
The Nebraska bill provided that the legislative 
power and authority of the said Territory 
should extend to all rightful subjects of legisla- 
tion consistent with the organic act and the Con- 
stitution of the United States. It did not make 
any exception as to slavery, but gave all the 



1858] Reply at Freeport 299 

power that it was possible for Congress to give, 
without violating the Constitution, to the terri- 
torial legislature, with no exception or limita- 
tion on the subject of slavery at all. The lan- 
guage of that bill which I have quoted gave 
the full power and the full authority over the 
subject of slavery, affirmatively and negatively, 
to introduce it or exclude it, so far as the Con- 
stitution of the United States would permit. 
What more could Mr. Chase give by his amend- 
ment? Nothing. He offered his amendment 
for the identical purpose for which Mr. Lin- 
coln is using it, to enable demagogues in the 
country to try and deceive the people. 

His amendment was to this effect. It pro- 
vided that the legislature should have the power 
to exclude slavery; and General Cass suggested, 
"Why not give the power to introduce as well 
as exclude?" The answer was, they have the 
power already in the bill to do both. Chase 
was afraid his amendment would be adopted if 
he put the alternative proposition and so make 
it fair both ways, but would not yield. He 
offered it for the purpose of having it rejected. 
He offered it, as he has himself avowed over and 
over again, simply to make capital out of it for 
the stump. He expected that it would be capi- 
tal for small politicians in the country, and that 
they would make an effort to deceive the people 



300 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

with it; and he was not mistaken, for Lincoln 
is carrying out the plan admirably. Lincoln 
knows that the Nebraska bill, without Chase's 
amendment, gave all the power which the Con- 
stitution would permit. Could Congress con- 
fer any more? Could Congress go beyond the 
Constitution of the country? We gave all — a 
full grant, with no exception in regard to slav- 
ery one way or the other. We left that question 
as we left all others, to be decided by the people 
for themselves, just as they pleased. I will not 
occupy my time on this question. I have 
argued it before all over Illinois. I have argued 
it in this beautiful city of Freeport; I have 
argued it in the North, the South, the East, and 
the West, avowing the same sentiments and the 
same principles. I have not been afraid to 
avow my sentiments up here for fear I would be 
trotted down into Egypt. 

The third question which Mr. Lincoln pre- 
sented is, if the Supreme Court of the United 
States shall decide that a State of this Union 
cannot exclude slavery from its own limits, will 
I submit to it? I am amazed that Lincoln 
should ask such a question. ["A school-boy 
knows better."] Yes, a school-boy does know 
better. Mr. Lincoln's object is to cast an impu- 
tation upon the Supreme Court. He knows 
that there never was but one man in America 



1858] Reply at Freeport 301 

claiming any degree of intelligence or decency, 
who ever for a moment pretended such a thing. 
It is true that the Washington "Union," in an 
article published on the 17th of last December, 
did put forth that doctrine, and I denounced 
the article on the floor of the Senate, in a speech 
which Mr. Lincoln now pretends was against 
the President. The "Union" had claimed that 
slavery had a right to go into the free States, and 
that any provision in the constitution or laws 
of the free States to the contrary was null and 
void. I denounced it in the Senate, as I said 
before, and I was the first man who did. Lin- 
coln's friends, Trumbull, and Seward, and 
Hale, and Wilson, and the whole Black Re- 
publican side of the Senate were silent. They 
left it to me to denounce it. And what was the 
reply made to me on that occasion? Mr. 
Toombs, of Georgia, got up and undertook to 
lecture me on the ground that I ought not to 
have deemed the article worthy of notice, and 
ought not to have replied to it; that there was 
not one man, woman, or child south of the Po- 
tomac, in any slave State, who did not repudiate 
any such pretensions. Mr. Lincoln knows that 
that reply was made on the spot, and yet now 
he asks this question. He might as well ask 
me, suppose Mr. Lincoln should steal a horse, 
would I sanction it? and it would be as genteel 



302 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

in me to ask him, in the event he stole a horse, 
what ought to be done with him. He casts an 
imputation upon the Supreme Court of the 
United States by supposing that they would vio- 
late the Constitution of the United States. I 
tell him that such a thing is not possible. It 
would be an act of moral treason that no man 
on the bench could ever descend to. Mr. Lin- 
coln himself would never in his partizan feel- 
ings so far forget what was right as to be guilty 
of such an act. 

The fourth question of Mr. Lincoln is: Are 
you in favor of acquiring additional territory, 
in disregard as to how such acquisition may 
affect the Union on the slavery question? This 
question is very ingeniously and cunningly put. 

The Black Republican creed lays it down ex- 
pressly, that under no circumstances shall we 
acquire any more territory unless slavery is first 
prohibited in the country. I ask Mr. Lincoln 
whether he is in favor of that proposition. Are 
you [addressing Mr. Lincoln] opposed to the 
acquisition of any more territory, under any cir- 
cumstances, unless slavery is prohibited in it? 
That he does not like to answer. When I ask 
him whether he stands up to that article in the 
platform of his party, he turns, Yankee-fashion, 
and, without answering it, asks me whether I 
am in favor of acquiring territory without re- 



1858] Reply at Freeport 303 

gard to how it may affect the Union on the slav- 
ery question. I answer that whenever it becomes 
necessary, in our growth and progress, to ac- 
quire more territory, that T am in favor of it, 
without reference to the question of slavery, and 
when we have acquired it, I will leave the peo- 
ple free to do as they please, either to make it 
slave or free territory, as they prefer. It is idle 
to tell me or you that we have territory enough. 
Our fathers supposed that we had enough when 
our territory extended to the Mississippi River, 
but a few years' growth and expansion satisfied 
them that we needed more, and the Louisiana 
territory, from the west branch of the Missis- 
sippi to the British possessions, was acquired. 
Then we acquired Oregon, then California and 
New Mexico. We have enough now for the 
present, but this is a young and a growing na- 
tion. It swarms as often as a hive of bees, and 
as new swarms are turned out each year, there 
must be hives in which they can gather and 
make their honey. In less than fifteen years, if 
the same progress that has distinguished this 
country for the last fifteen years continues, every 
foot of vacant land between this and the Pacific 
ocean owned by the United States, will be oc- 
cupied. Will you not continue to increase at 
the end of fifteen years as well as now? I tell 
you, increase, and multiply, and expand, is the 



304 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

law of this nation's existence. You cannot limit 
this great republic by mere boundary lines, say- 
ing, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no further." 
Any one of you gentlemen might as well say to 
a son twelve years old that he is big enough, 
and must not grow any larger, and in order to 
prevent his growth put a hoop around him to 
keep him to his present size. What would be 
the result? Either the hoop must burst and 
be rent asunder, or the child must die. So it 
would be with this great nation. With our nat- 
ural increase, growing with a rapidity unknown 
in any other part of the globe, with the tide of 
emigration that is fleeing from despotism in 
the Old World to seek refuge in our own, there 
is a constant torrent pouring into this country 
that requires more land, more territory upon 
which to settle, and just as fast as our interests 
and our destiny require additional territory in 
the North, in the South, or on the islands of the 
ocean, I am for it, and when we acquire it, will 
leave the people, according to the Nebraska 
bill, free to do as they please on the subject of 
slavery and every other question. 

I trust now that Mr. Lincoln will deem him- 
self answered on his four points. He racked 
his brain so much in devising these four ques- 
tions that he exhausted himself, and had not 
strength enough to invent the others. As soon 



1858] Reply at Freeport 305 

as he is able to hold a council with his advisers, 
Lovejoy, Farnsworth, and Fred Douglass, he 
will frame and propound others. ["Good, 
good."] You Black Republicans who say good, 
I have no doubt think that they are all good 
men. I have reason to recollect that some peo- 
ple in this country think that Fred Douglass 
is a very good man. The last time I came here 
to make a speech, while talking from the stand 
to you, people of Freeport, as I am doing to- 
day, I saw a carriage, and a magnificent one it 
was, drive up and take a position on the outside 
of the crowd; a beautiful young lady was sit- 
ting on the box-seat, whilst Fred Douglass and 
her mother reclined inside, and the owner of 
the carriage acted as driver. I saw this in your 
own town. ["What of it?"] 'All I have to 
say of it is this, that if you Black Republicans 
think that the negro ought to be on a social 
equality with your wives and daughters, and 
ride in a carriage with your wife, whilst you 
drive the team, you have perfect right to do so. 
I am told that one of Fred Douglass's kinsmen, 
another rich black negro, is now traveling in 
this part of the State making speeches for his 
friend Lincoln as the champion of black men. 
["What have you to say against it?"] All I 
have to say on that subject is, that those of you 
who believe that the negro is your equal and 



306 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

ought to be on an equality with you socially, 
politically, and legally, have a right to enter- 
tain those opinions, and of course will vote for 
Mr. Lincoln. 

I have a word to say on Mr. Lincoln's an- 
swer to the interrogatories contained in my 
speech at Ottawa, and which he has pretended 
to reply to here to-day. Mr. Lincoln makes a 
great parade of the fact that I quoted a plat- 
form as having been adopted by the Black Re- 
publican party at Springfield in 1854, which, it 
turns out, was adopted at another place. Mr. 
Lincoln loses sight of the thing itself in his 
ecstasies over the mistake I made in stating the 
place where it was done. He thinks that that 
platform was not adopted on the right "spot." 

When I put the direct questions to Mr. Lin- 
coln to ascertain whether he now stands pledged 
to that creed — to the unconditional repeal of 
the fugitive-slave law, a refusal to admit any 
more slave States into the Union even if the 
people want them, a determination to apply the 
Wilmot proviso, not only to all the territory we 
now have, but all that we may hereafter acquire 
— he refuses to answer, and his followers say, in 
excuse, that the resolutions upon which I based 
my interrogatories were not adopted at the right 
"spot." Lincoln and his political friends are 
great on "spots." In Congress, as a represen- 



1858] Reply at Freeport 307 

tative of this State, he declared the Mexican 
war to be unjust and infamous, and would not 
support it, or acknowledge his own country to 
be right in the contest, because he said that 
American blood was not shed on American soil 
in the right "spot." And now he cannot an- 
swer the questions I put to him at Ottawa be- 
cause the resolutions I read were not adopted 
at the right "spot." It may be possible that I 
was led into an error as to the spot on which the 
resolutions I then read were proclaimed, but I 
was not, and am not in error as to the fact of 
their forming the basis of the creed of the Re- 
publican party when that party was first organ- 
ized. I will state to you the evidence I had, 
and upon which I relied for my statement that 
the resolutions in question were adopted at 
Springfield on the 5th of October, 1854. Al- 
though I was aware that such resolutions had 
been passed in this district, and nearly all the 
northern congressional districts and county con- 
ventions, I had not noticed whether or not they 
had been adopted by any State convention. In 
1856 a debate arose in Congress between Major 
Thomas L. Harris, of the Springfield district, 
and Mr. Norton, of the Joliet district, on politi- 
cal matters connected with our State, in the 
course of which Major Harris quoted those 
resolutions as having been passed by the first 



308 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

Republican State convention that ever assem- 
bled in Illinois. I knew that Major Harris 
was remarkable for his accuracy, that he was a 
very conscientious and sincere man, and I also 
noticed that Norton did not question the ac- 
curacy of this statement. I therefore took it for 
granted that it was so, and the other day when 
I concluded to use the resolutions at Ottawa, I 
wrote to Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the 
"State Register," at Springfield, calling his at- 
tention to them, telling him that I had been 
informed that Major Harris was lying sick at 
Springfield, and desiring him to call upon him 
and ascertain all the facts concerning the reso- 
lutions, the time and the place where they were 
adopted. In reply Mr. Lanphier sent me two 
copies of his paper, which I have here. The 
first is a copy of the "State Register," published 
at Springfield, Mr. Lincoln's own town, on the 
1 6th of October, 1854, on ^Y eleven days after the 
adjournment of the convention, from which I 
desire to read the following: 

During the late discussions in this city, Lincoln 
made a speech, to which Judge Douglas replied. In 
Lincoln's speech he took the broad ground that, ac- 
cording to the Declaration of Independence, the 
whites and blacks are equal. From this he drew the 
conclusion, which he several times repeated, that the 
white man had no right to pass laws for the govern- 



1858] Reply at Freeport 309 

ment of the black man without the nigger's consent. 
This speech of Lincoln's was heard and applauded by- 
all the Abolitionists assembled in Springfield. So 
soon as Mr. Lincoln was done speaking, Mr. Codding 
arose and requested all the delegates to the Black 
Republican convention to withdraw into the Senate 
chamber. They did so, and after long deliberation, 
they laid down the following Abolition platform as 
the platform on which they stood. We call the par- 
ticular attention of our readers to it. 

Then follows the identical platform, word 
for word, which I read at Ottawa. Now, that 
was published in Mr. Lincoln's own town, 
eleven days after the convention was held, and 
it has remained on record up to this day never 
contradicted. 

When I quoted the resolutions at Ottawa and 
questioned Mr. Lincoln in relation to them, he 
said that his name was on the committee that 
reported them, but he did not serve, nor did 
he think he served, because he was, or thought 
he was, in Tazewell County at the time the con- 
vention was in session. He did not deny that 
the resolutions were passed by the Springfield 
convention. He did not know better, and evi- 
dently thought that they were, but afterward 
his friends declared that they had discovered 
that they varied in some respects from the reso- 
lutions passed by that convention. I have 



310 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

shown you that I had good evidence for believ- 
ing that the resolutions had been passed at 
Springfield. 

Mr. Lincoln ought to have known better; but 
not a word is said about his ignorance on the 
subject, whilst I, notwithstanding the circum- 
stances, am accused of forgery. 

Now, I will show you that if I have made a 
mistake as to the place where these resolutions 
were adopted — and when I get down to Spring- 
field I will investigate the matter and see 
whether or not I have — the principles they 
enunciate were adopted as the Black Republi- 
can platform ["White, white"], in the various 
counties and congressional districts throughout 
the north end of the State in 1854. This plat- 
form was adopted in nearly every county that 
gave a Black Republican majority for the legis- 
lature in that year, and here is a man [pointing 
to Mr. Denio, who sat on the stand near Deacon 
Bross] who knows as well as any living man 
that it was the creed of the Black Republican 
party at that time. I would be willing to call 
Denio as a witness, or any other honest man be- 
longing to that party. I will now read the 
resolutions adopted at the Rockford convention 
on the 30th of August, 1854, which nominated 
Washburne for Congress. You elected him on 
the following platform: 



1858] Reply at Freeport 311 

Resolved, That the continued and increasing ag- 
gressions of slavery in our country are destructive of 
the best rights of a free people, and that such aggres- 
sions cannot be successfully resisted without the united 
political action of all good men. 

Resolved, That the citizens of the United States 
hold in their hands peaceful, constitutional, and effi- 
cient remedy against the encroachment of the slave 
power, the ballot-box; and if that remedy is boldly 
and wisely applied, the principles of liberty and 
eternal justice will be established. 

Resolved, That we accept this issue forced upon 
us by the slave power, and, in defense of freedom, 
will co-operate and be known as Republicans, pledged 
to the accomplishment of the following purposes: 

To bring the administration of the government 
back to the control of first principles; to restore Kan- 
sas and Nebraska to the position of free Territories; 
to repeal and entirely abrogate the fugitive-slave law; 
to restrict slavery to those States in which it exists; to 
prohibit the admission of any more slave States into 
the Union; to exclude slavery from all the Terri- 
tories over which the General Government has ex- 
clusive jurisdiction, and to resist the acquisition of 
any more Territories unless the introduction of slavery 
therein forever shall have been prohibited. 

Resolved, That in furtherance of these principles 
we will use such constitutional and lawful means as 
shall seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and 
that we will' support no man for office under the 
General or State Government who is not positively 



312 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

committed to the support of these principles, and 
whose personal character and conduct is not a guar- 
anty that he is reliable and shall abjure all party al- 
legiance and ties. 

Resolved, That we cordially invite persons of all 
former political parties whatever in favor of the ob- 
ject expressed in the above resolutions to unite with 
us in carrying them into effect. 

Well, you think that is a very good platform, 
do you not? If you do, if you approve it now, 
and think it is all right, you will not join with 
those men who say that I libel you by calling 
these your principles, will you? Now, Mr. 
Lincoln complains; Mr. Lincoln charges that I 
did you and him injustice by saying that this was 
the platform of your party. I am told that 
Washburne made a speech in Galena last night, 
in which he abused me awfully for bringing to 
light this platform, on which he was elected to 
Congress. He thought that you had forgotten 
it, as he and Mr. Lincoln desire to. He did 
not deny but that you had adopted it, and that 
he had subscribed to and was pledged by it, but 
he did not think it was fair to call it up and re- 
mind the people that it was their platform. 

But I am glad to find that you are more hon- 
est in your Abolitionism than your leaders, by 
avowing that it is your platform, and right in 
your opinion. 



1858] Reply at Freeport 313 

In the adoption of that platform, you not only 
declared that you would resist the admission of 
any more slave States, and work for the repeal 
of the fugitive-slave law, but you pledge your- 
self not to vote for any man for State or Federal 
offices who was not committed to these princi- 
ples. You were thus committed. Similar res- 
olutions to those were adopted in your county 
convention here; and now with your admissions 
that they are your platform and embody your 
sentiments now as they did then, what do you 
think of Mr. Lincoln, your candidate for the 
United States Senate, who is attempting to 
dodge the responsibility of this platform, be- 
cause it was not adopted in the right spot? I 
thought that it was adopted in Springfield, but 
it turns out it was not, that it was adopted at 
Rockford, and in the various counties which 
comprise this congressional district. When 
I get into the next district, I will show that the 
same platform was adopted there, and so on 
through the State, until I nail the responsibility 
of it upon the back of the Black Republican 
party throughout the State. [A voice: "Could 
n't you modify and call it brown?"] Not a 
bit. I thought that you were becoming a lit- 
tle brown when your members in Congress 
voted for the Crittenden-Montgomery bill, but 
since you have backed out from that position, 



3 H Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

and gone back to Abolitionism, you are black 
and not brown. 

Gentlemen, I have shown you what your plat- 
form was in 1854. You still adhere to it. The 
same platform was adopted by nearly all the 
counties where the Black Republican party had 
a majority in 1854. I wish now to call your 
attention to the action of your representatives in 
the legislature when they assembled together at 
Springfield. In the first place you must re- 
member that this was the organization of a new 
party. It is so declared in the resolutions 
themselves, which say that you are going to dis- 
solve all old party ties and call the new party 
Republican. The Old Whig party was to have 
its throat cut from ear to ear, and the Demo- 
cratic party was to be annihilated and blotted 
out of existence, whilst in lieu of these parties 
the Black Republican party was to be organ- 
ized on this Abolition platform. You know 
who the chief leaders were in breaking up and 
destroying these two great parties. Lincoln on 
the one hand and Trumbull on the other, being 
disappointed politicians, and having retired or 
been driven to obscurity by an outraged con- 
stituency because of their political sins, formed 
a scheme to Abolitionize the two parties, and 
lead the old-line Whigs and old-line Democrats 
captive, bound hand and foot, into the Abolition 



1858] Reply at Freeport 315 

camp. Giddings, Chase, Fred Douglass, and 
Lovejoy were here to christen them whenever 
they were brought in. Lincoln went to work to 
dissolve the old-line Whig party. Clay was 
dead, and although the sod was not yet green 
on his grave, this man undertook to bring into 
disrepute those great compromise measures of 
1850, with which Clay and Webster were iden- 
tified. Up to 1854 the Old Whig party and the 
Democratic party and stood on a common plat- 
form so far as this slavery question was con- 
cerned. You Whigs and we Democrats dif- 
fered about the bank, the tariff, distribution, 
the specie circular, and the subtreasury, but we 
agreed on this slavery question and the true mode 
of preserving the peace and harmony of the 
Union. The compromise measures of 1850 
were introduced by Clay, were defended by 
Webster, and supported by Cass, and were ap- 
proved by Fillmore, and sanctioned by the na- 
tional men of both parties. They constituted a 
common plank upon which both Whigs and 
Democrats stood. In 1852 the Whig party, in 
its last national convention at Baltimore, in- 
dorsed and approved these measures by Clay, 
and so did the national convention of the Demo- 
cratic party held that same year. Thus the old- 
line Whigs and the old-line Democrats stood 
pledged to the great principle of self-govern- 



316 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

ment, which guarantees to the people of each 
Territory the right to decide the slavery ques- 
tion for themselves. In 1854, a f ter tne death 
of Clay and Webster, Mr. Lincoln, on the part 
of the Whigs, undertook to Abolitionize the 
Whig party by dissolving it, transferring the 
members into the Abolition camp and making 
them train under Giddings, Fred Douglass, 
Lovejoy, Chase, Farnsworth, and other Aboli- 
tion leaders. Trumbull undertook to dissolve 
the Democratic party by taking old Democrats 
into the Abolition camp. Mr. Lincoln was aid- 
ed in his efforts by many leading Whigs 
throughout the State — your member of Con- 
gress, Mr. Washburne, being one of the most 
active. Trumbull was aided by many rene- 
gades from the Democratic party, among whom 
were John Wentworth, Tom Turner, and others 
with whom you are familiar. 

Mr. Turner, who was one of the moderators, 
here interposed, and said that he had drawn the 
resolutions which Senator Douglas had read. 

Mr. Douglas: Yes, and Turner says that he 
drew these resolutions. ["Hurrah for Turner!" 
"Hurrah for Douglas!"] That is right; give 
Turner cheers for drawing the resolutions, if 
you approve them. If he drew those resolu- 
tions, he will not deny that they are the creed 
of the Black Republican party. 



1858] Reply at Freeport 317 

Mr. Turner: They are our creed exactly. 

Mr. Douglas: And yet Lincoln denies that 
he stands on them. Mr. Turner says that the 
creed of the Black Republican party is the ad- 
mission of no more slave States, and yet Mr. 
Lincoln declares that he would not like to be 
placed in a position where he would have to 
vote for them. All I have to say to friend Lin- 
coln is, that I do not think there is much danger 
of his being placed in such a position. As Mr. 
Lincoln would be very sorry to be placed in such 
an embarrassing position as to be obliged to vote 
on the admission of any more slave States, I pro- 
pose, out of mere kindness, to relieve him from 
any such necessity. When the bargain between 
Lincoln and Trumbull was completed for Abo- 
litionizing the Whig and Democratic parties, 
they "spread" over the State, Lincoln still pre- 
tending to be an old-line Whig, in order to 
"rope in" the Whigs, and Trumbull pretending 
to be as good a Democrat as he ever was, in 
order to coax the Democrats over into the Abo- 
lition ranks. They played the part that "de- 
coy ducks" play down on the Potomac River. 
In that part of the country they make artificial 
ducks, and put them on the water in places 
where the wild ducks are to be found, for the 
purpose of decoying them. Well, Lincoln and 
Trumbull played the part of these "decoy 



318 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

ducks," and deceived enough old-line Whigs 
and old-line Democrats to elect a Black Repub- 
lican legislature. When that legislature met, 
the first thing it did was to elect as Speaker of 
the House the very man who is now boasting 
that he wrote the Abolition platform on which 
Lincoln will not stand. I want to know of Mr. 
Turner whether or not, when he was elected, 
he was a good embodiment of Republican prin- 
ciples? 

Mr. Turner: I hope I was then and am now. 

Mr. Douglas: He swears that he hopes he 
was then and is now. He wrote that Black Re- 
publican platform, and is satisfied with it now. 
I admire and acknowledge Turner's honesty. 
Every man of you knows what he says about 
these resolutions being the platform of the Black 
Republican party is true, and you also know 
that each one of these men who are shuffling 
and trying to deny it is only trying to cheat the 
people out of their votes for the purpose of de- 
ceiving them still more after the election. I 
propose to trace this thing a little further, in 
order that you can see what additional evidence 
there is to fasten this revolutionary platform 
upon the Black Republican party. When the 
legislature assembled, there was a United States 
senator to elect in the place of General Shields, 
and before they proceeded to ballot, Lovejoy 



1858] Reply at Freeport 319 

insisted on laying down certain principles by 
which to govern the party. It has been pub- 
lished to the world and satisfactorily proven 
that there was, at the time the alliance was made 
between Trumbull and Lincoln to Abolitionize 
the two parties, an agreement that Lincoln 
should take Shields's place in the United States 
Senate, and Trumbull should have mine so soon 
as they could conveniently get rid of me. When 
Lincoln was beaten for Shields's place, in a man- 
ner I will refer to in a few minutes, he felt very 
sore and restive; his friends grumbled, and 
some of them came out and charged that the 
most infamous treachery had been practised 
against him; that the bargain was that Lincoln 
was to have had Shields's place, and Trumbull 
was to have waited for mine, but that Trum- 
bull, having control of a few Abolitionized 
Democrats, prevented them from voting for 
Lincoln, thus keeping him within a few votes 
of an election until he succeeded in forcing the 
party to drop him and elect Trumbull. Well, 
Trumbull having cheated Lincon, his friends 
made a fuss, and in order to keep them and Lin- 
coln quiet, the party were obliged to come for- 
ward, in advance, at the last State election, and 
make a pledge that they would go for Lincoln 
and nobody else. Lincoln could not be silenced 
in any other way. 



320 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

Now, there are a great many Black Repub- 
licans of you who do not know this thing was 
done. ["White, white," and great clamor.] 
I wish to remind you that while Mr. Lincoln 
was speaking there was not a Democrat vulgar 
and blackguard enough to interrupt him. But 
I know that the shoe is pinching you. I am 
clinching Lincoln now, and you are scared 
to death for the result. I have seen this thing 
before. I have seen men make appointments 
for joint discussions, and, the moment their man 
has been heard, try to interrupt and prevent a 
fair hearing of the other side. I have seen your 
mobs before, and defy your wrath. [Tremen- 
dous applause.] My friends, do not cheer, for 
I need my whole time. The object of the op- 
position is to occupy my attention in order to 
prevent me from giving the whole evidence and 
nailing this double-dealing on the Black Re- 
publican party. As I have before said, Love- 
joy demanded a declaration of principles on 
the part of the Black Republicans of the legis- 
lature before going into an election for United 
States senator. He offered the following pre- 
amble and resolutions which I hold in my hand : 

Whereas, Human slavery is a violation of the 
principles of natural and revealed rights; and where- 
as, the fathers of the Revolution, fully imbued with 
the spirit of these principles, declared freedom to be 



1858] Reply at Freeport 321 

the inalienable birthright of all men; and whereas, 
the preamble to the Constitution of the United States 
avers that that instrument was ordained to establish 
justice and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves 
and our posterity; and whereas, in furtherance of the 
above principles, slavery was forever prohibited in the 
old Northwest Territory, and more recently in all that 
territory lying west and north of the State of Mis- 
souri by the act of the Federal Government; and 
whereas, the repeal of the prohibition last referred to 
was contrary to the wishes of the people of Illinois, 
a violation of an implied compact, long deemed 
sacred by the citizens of the United States, and a wide 
departure from the uniform action of the General 
Government in relation to the extension of slavery; 
therefore, 

Resolved, by the House of Representatives, the 
Senate concurring therein, That our senators in Con- 
gress be instructed, and our representatives requested 
to introduce, if not otherwise introduced, and to vote 
for a bill to restore such prohibition to the aforesaid 
Territories, and also to extend a similar prohibition 
to all territory which now belongs to the United 
States, or which may hereafter come under their juris- 
diction. 

Resolved, That our senators in Congress be in- 
structed, and our representatives requested, to vote 
against the admission of any State into the Union, 
the constitution of which does not prohibit slavery, 
whether the territory out of which such State may 
have formed shall have been acquired by conquest, 



322 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

treaty, purchase, or from original territory of the 
United States. 

Resolved, That our senators in Congress be in- 
structed, and our representatives requested, to intro- 
duce and vote for a bill to repeal an act entitled " An 
act respecting fugitives from justice and persons es- 
caping from the services of their masters " ; and, fail- 
ing in that, for such a modification of it as shall secure 
the right of habeas corpus and trial by jury before the 
regularly constituted authorities of the State, to all 
persons claimed as owing service or labor. 

Those resolutions were introduced by Mr. 
Lovejoy immediately preceding the election of 
senator. They declared first, that the Wilmot 
proviso must be applied to all territory north 
of 36 degrees thirty minutes; secondly, that it 
must be applied to all territory south of 36 de- 
grees thirty minutes; thirdly, that it must be 
applied to all the territory now owned by the 
United States; and finally, that it must be ap- 
plied to all territory hereafter to be acquired 
by the United States. The next resolution de- 
clares that no more slave States shall be admit- 
ted into this Union under any circumstances 
whatever, no matter whether they are formed 
out of territory now owned by us or that we 
may hereafter acquire, by treaty, by Congress, 
or in any manner whatever. The next resolu- 
tion demands the unconditional repeal of the 



1858] Reply at Freeport 323 

fugitive-slave law, although its unconditional 
repeal would leave no provision for carrying 
out that clause of the Constitution of the United 
States which guarantees the surrender of fugi- 
tives. If they could not get an unconditional 
repeal, they demanded that that law should be 
so modified as to make it as nearly useless as 
possible. Now, I want to show you who voted 
for these resolutions. When the vote was taken 
on the first resolution, it was decided in the 
affirmative — yeas 41, nays 32. You will find 
that this is a strict party vote, between the Dem- 
ocrats on the one hand, and the Black Repub- 
licans on the other. [Cries of "White, white," 
and clamor.] I know your name, and always 
call things by their right name. The point I 
wish to call your attention to is this: that these 
resolutions were adopted on the 7th day of Feb- 
ruary, and that on the 8th they went into an 
election for a United States senator, and that 
day every man who voted for these resolutions, 
with but two exceptions, voted for Lincoln for 
the United States Senate. ["Give us their 
names."] I will read the names over to you 
if you want them, but I believe your object is 
to occupy my time. 

On the next resolution the vote stood, yeas 33, 
nays 40; and on the third resolution, yeas 35, 
nays 47. I wish to impress upon you that every 



324 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

man who voted for those resolutions, with but 
two exceptions, voted on the next day for Lin- 
coln for United States senator. Bear in mind 
that the members who thus voted for Lincoln 
were elected to the legislature pledged to vote 
for no man for office under the State or Federal 
Government who was not committed to this 
Black Republican platform. They were all so 
pledged. Mr. Turner, who stands by me, and 
who then represented you, and who says that 
he wrote those resolutions, voted for Lincoln, 
when he was pledged not to do so unless Lin- 
coln was in favor of those resolutions. I now 
ask Mr. Turner [turning to Mr. Turner], did 
you violate your pledge in voting for Mr. Lin- 
coln, or did he commit himself to your platform 
before you cast your vote for him? 

I could go through the whole list of names 
here and show you that all the Black Repub- 
licans in the legislature, who voted for Mr. 
Lincoln, had voted on the day previous for these 
resolutions. For instance, here are the names 
of Sargent and Little, of Jo Daviess and Car- 
roll; Thomas J. Turner, of Stephenson; Law- 
rence, of Boone and McHenry; Swan, of Lake; 
Pinckney, of Ogle County; and Lyman, of Win- 
nebago. Thus you see every member from 
your congressional district voted for Mr. Lin- 
coln, and they were pledged not to vote for him 



1858] Reply at Freeport 325 

unless he was committed to the doctrine of no 
more slave States, the prohibition of slavery in 
the Territories, and the repeal of the fugitive- 
slave law. Mr. Lincoln tells you to-day that 
he is not pledged to any such doctrine. Either 
Mr. Lincoln was then committed to those prop- 
ositions, or Mr. Turner violated his pledges 
to you when he voted for him. Either Lincoln 
was pledged to each one of those propositions, 
or else every Black Republican representative 
from this congressional district violated his 
pledge of honor to his constituents by voting for 
him. I ask you which horn of the dilemma 
will you take? Will you hold Mr. Lincoln up to 
the platform of his party, or will you accuse 
every representative you had in the legislature 
of violating his pledge of honor to his constitu- 
ents? There is no escape for you. Either Mr. 
Lincoln was committed to those propositions, or 
your members violated their faith. Take either 
horn of the dilemma you choose. There is no 
dodging the question ; I want Lincoln's answer. 
He says he was not pledged to repeal the fugi- 
tive-slave law, that he does not quite like to do 
it; he will not introduce a law to repeal it, but 
thinks there ought to be some law; he does not 
tell what it ought to be ; upon the whole, he is 
altogether undecided, and don't know what to 
think or do. That is the substance of his an- 



326 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

swer upon the repeal of the fugitive-slave law. 
I put the question to him distinctly, whether he 
indorsed that part of the Black Republican plat- 
form which calls for the entire abrogation and 
repeal of the fugitive-slave law. He answers, 
no! — that he does not indorse that; but he does 
not tell what he is for, or what he will vote for. 
His answer is, in fact, no answer at all. Why 
cannot he speak out and say what he is for and 
what he will do? 

In regard to there being no more slave States, 
he is not pledged to that. He would not like, 
he says, to be put in a position where he would 
have to vote one way or another upon that ques- 
tion. I pray you, do not put him in a position 
that would embarrass him so much. Gentle- 
men, if he goes to the Senate he may be put in 
that position, and then which way will he vote? 
[A voice: "How will you vote?"] I will vote 
for the admission of just such a State as by the 
form of their constitution the people show they 
want. If they want slavery, they shall have it; 
if they prohibit slavery, it shall be prohibited. 
They can form their institutions to please them- 
selves, subject only to the Constitution; and I 
for one stand ready to receive them into the 
Union. Why cannot your Black Republican 
candidates talk out as plain as that when they 
are questioned? 



1858] Reply at Freeport 327 

I do not want to cheat any man out of his 
vote. No man is deceived in regard to my prin- 
ciples if I have the power to express myself in 
terms explicit enough to convey my ideas. 

Mr. Lincoln made a speech when he was 
nominated for the United States Senate which 
covers all these Abolition platforms. He there 
lays down a proposition so broad in its Aboli- 
tionism as to cover the whole ground. 

In my opinion it [the slavery agitation] will not 
cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 
11 A house divided against itself cannot stand." I 
believe this government cannot endure permanently 
half slave and half free. I do not expect the house 
to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. 
It will become all one thing or all the other. Either 
the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread 
of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in 
the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, 
or its advocates will push it forward till it shall be- 
come alike lawful in all the States — old as well as 
new, North as well as South. 

There you find that Mr. Lincoln lays down 
the doctrine that this Union cannot endure di- 
vided as our fathers made it, with free and slave 
States. He says they must all become one thing 
or all the other; that they must all be free or all 
slave, or else the Union cannot continue to ex- 
ist. It being his opinion that to admit any more 



328 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

slave States, to continue to divide the Union into 
free and slave States, will dissolve it, I want to 
know of Mr. Lincoln whether he will vote for 
the admission of another slave State. 

He tells you the Union cannot exist unless 
the States are all free or all slave; he tells you 
that he is opposed to making them all slave, and 
hence he is for making them all free, in order 
that the Union may exist; and yet he will not 
say that he will not vote against another slave 
State, knowing that the Union must be dissolved 
if he votes for it. I ask you if that is fair deal- 
ing? 

The true intent and inevitable conclusion 
to be drawn from his first Springfield speech 
is, that he is opposed to the admission of any 
more slave States under any circumstances. If 
he is so opposed, why not say so? If he be- 
lieves this Union cannot endure divided into 
free and slave States, that they must all become 
free in order to save the Union, he is bound as 
an honest man, to vote against any more slave 
States. If he believes it he is bound to do it. 
Show me that it is my duty in order to save the 
Union to do a particular act, and I will do it if 
the Constitution does not prohibit it. I am not 
for the dissolution of the Union under any cir- 
cumstances. I will pursue no course of con- 
duct that will give just cause for the dissolution 



1858] Reply at Freeport 329 

of the Union. The hope of the friends of free- 
dom throughout the world rests upon the per- 
petuity of this Union. The downtrodden and 
oppressed people who are suffering under Eu- 
ropean despotism all look with hope and anx- 
iety to the American Union as the only resting- 
place and permanent home of freedom and self- 
government. 

Mr. Lincoln says that he believes that this 
Union cannot continue to endure with slave 
States in it, and yet he will not tell you dis- 
tinctly whether he will vote for or against the 
admission of any more slave States, but says he 
would not like to be put to the test. I do not 
think he will be put to the test. I do not think 
that the people of Illinois desire a man to repre- 
sent them who would not like to be put to the 
test on the performance of a high constitutional 
duty. 

I will retire in shame from the Senate of 
the United States when I am not willing to be 
put to the test in the performance of my duty. 
I have been put to severe tests. I have stood 
by my principles in fair weather and in foul, in 
the sunshine and in the rain. I have defended 
the great principles of self-government here 
among you when Northern sentiment ran in a 
torrent against me, and I have defended that 
same great principle when Southern sentiment 



330 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

came down like an avalanche upon me. I was 
not afraid of any test they put to me. I knew 
I was right — I knew my principles were sound 
— I knew that the people would see in the end 
that I had done right, and I knew that the God 
of Heaven would smile upon me if I was faith- 
ful in the performance of my duty. 

Mr. Lincoln makes a charge of corruption 
against the Supreme Court of the United States, 
and two Presidents of the United States, and 
attempts to bolster it up by saying that I did the 
same against the Washington "Union." Sup- 
pose I did make that charge of corruption 
against the Washington "Union," when it was 
true, does that justify him in making a false 
charge against me and others? That is the ques- 
tion I would put. 

He says that at the time the Nebraska bill 
was introduced, and before it was passed, there 
was a conspiracy between the judges of the 
Supreme Court, President Pierce, President 
Buchanan, and myself by that bill, and the 
decision of the court, to break down the 
barrier and establish slavery all over the Union. 
Does he not know that that charge is historically 
false as against President Buchanan? He knows 
that Mr. Buchanan was at that time in Eng- 
land, representing his country with distin- 
guished ability at the Court of St. James, that 



1858] Reply at Freeport 331 

he was there for a long time before, and did not 
return for a year or more after. He knows that 
to be true, and that fact proves his charge to be 
false as against Mr. Buchanan. Then again, 
I wish to call his attention to the fact that at the 
time the Nebraska bill was passed, the Dred 
Scott case was not before the Supreme Court 
at all; it was not upon the docket of the Su- 
preme Court; it had not been brought there, and 
the judges in all probability knew nothing of it. 
Thus the history of the country proves the 
charge to be false as against them. 

As to President Pierce, his high character as a 
man of integrity and honor is enough to vindi- 
cate him from such a charge; and as to myself, I 
pronounce the charge an infamous lie, whenever 
and wherever made, and by whomsoever made. 
I am willing that Mr. Lincoln should go and 
rake up every public act of mine, every meas- 
ure I have introduced, report I have made, 
speech delivered, and criticize them; but when 
he charges upon me a corrupt conspiracy for the 
purpose of perverting the institutions of the 
country, I brand it as it deserves. I say the his- 
tory of the country proves it to be false, and that 
it could not have been possible at the time. But 
now he tries to protect himself in this charge, 
because I made a charge against the Washing- 
ton "Union." 



332 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

My speech in the Senate against the Washing- 
ton "Union" was made because it advocated a 
revolutionary doctrine, by declaring that 
the free States had not the right to pro- 
hibit slavery within their own limits. Because 
I made that charge against the Washington 
"Union," Mr. Lincoln says it was a charge 
against Mr. Buchanan. Suppose it was; is Lin- 
coln the peculiar defender of Mr. Buchanan? 
Is he so interested in the Federal administra- 
tion, and so bound to it, that he must jump to 
the rescue and defend it from every attack that 
I may make against it? I understand the whole 
thing. 

The Washington "Union," under that most 
corrupt of all men, Cornelius Wendell, is 
advocating Mr. Lincoln's claim to the Senate. 
Wendell was the printer of the last Black Re- 
publican House of Representatives; he was a 
candidate before the present Democratic House, 
but was ignominiously kicked out, and then he 
took the money which he had made out of the 
public printing by means of the Black Repub- 
licans, bought the Washington "Union," and is 
now publishing it in the name of the Demo- 
cratic party, and advocating Mr. Lincoln's elec- 
tion to the Senate. Mr. Lincoln therefore con- 
siders an attack upon Wendell and his corrupt 
gang as a personal attack upon him. This only 



1858] Reply at Freeport 333 

proves what I have charged, that there is an 
alliance between Lincoln and his supporters, 
and the Federal office-holders of this State, and 
presidential aspirants out of it, to break me 
down at home. 

Mr. Lincoln feels bound to come in to the 
rescue of the Washington "Union." In that 
speech which I delivered in answer to the 
Washington "Union," I made it distinctly 
against the "Union" alone. I did not choose to 
go beyond that. If I have occasion to attack 
the President's conduct, I will do it in language 
that will not be misunderstood. When I dif- 
fered with the President I spoke out so that 
you all heard me. That question passed away; 
it resulted in the triumph of my principle by 
allowing the people to do as they please, and 
there is an end of the controversy. 

Whenever the great principle of self-govern- 
ment — the right of the people to make their own 
constitution, and come into the Union with 
slavery or without it, as they see proper — shall 
again arise, you will find me standing firm in 
defense of that principle, and fighting whoever 
fights it. 

If Mr. Buchanan stands, as I doubt not he 
will, by the recommendation contained in his 
message, that hereafter all State constitutions 
ought to be submitted to the people before the 



334 Stephen A. Douglas [Aug. 27 

admission of the State into the Union, he will 
find me standing by him firmly, shoulder to 
shoulder, in carrying it out. I know Mr. Lin- 
coln's object; he wants to divide the Democratic 
party, in order that he may defeat me and go to 
the Senate. 

[Mr. Douglas's time here expired, and he 
stopped on the moment] 




< 3 



< ■§ 
I § 



1 * 

Q •£ 

^ o 

2 



J 2 

"3 j 



o 






1858] Rejoinder at Freeport 335 



Mr. Lincoln's Rejoinder in the Freeport Joint 
Debate. 

MY FRIENDS : It will readily occur to 
you that I cannot in half an hour no- 
tice all the things that so able a man as 
Judge Douglas can say in an hour and a half; 
and I hope, therefore, if there be anything that 
he has said upon which you would like to hear 
something from me, but which I omit to com- 
ment upon, you will bear in mind that it would 
be expecting an impossibility for me to go over 
his whole ground. I can but take up some of 
the points that he has dwelt upon, and employ 
my half hour specially on them. 

The first thing I have to say to you is a word 
in regard to Judge Douglas's declaration about 
the "vulgarity and blackguardism" in the audi- 
ence — that no such thing, as he says, was shown 
by any Democrat while I was speaking. Now 
I only wish, by way of reply on this subject, to 
say that while I was speaking I used no "vul- 
garity or blackguardism" toward any Demo- 
crat. 

Now, my friends, I come to all this long por- 
tion of the judge's speech — perhaps half of it — 



336 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

which he has devoted to the various resolutions 
and platforms that have been adopted in the 
different counties, in the different congressional 
districts, and in the Illinois legislature — which 
he supposes are at variance with the positions 
I have assumed before you to-day. It is true 
that many of these resolutions are at variance 
with the positions I have here assumed. All I 
have to ask is that we talk reasonably and ra- 
tionally about it. I happen to know, the judge's 
opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, that 
I have never tried to conceal my opinions, nor 
tried to deceive any one in reference to them. 
He may go and examine all the members who 
voted for me for United States senator in 1855, 
after the election of 1854. They were pledged 
to certain things here at home, and were deter- 
mined to have pledges from me, and if he will 
find any of these persons who will tell him any- 
thing inconsistent with what I say now, I will 
retire from the race, and give him no more 
trouble. 

The plain truth is this. At the introduction 
of the Nebraska policy, we believed there was 
a new era being introduced in the history of the 
republic, which tended to the spread and per- 
petuation of slavery. But in our opposition to 
that measure we did not agree with one another 
in everything. The people in the north end of 



1858] Rejoinder at Freeport 337 

the State were for stronger measures of opposi- 
tion than we of the central and southern por- 
tions of the State, but we were all opposed to 
the Nebraska doctrine. We had that one feel- 
ing and that one sentiment in common. You 
at the north end met in your conventions and 
passed your resolutions. We in the middle of 
the State and further south did not hold such 
conventions and pass the same resolutions, al- 
though we had in general a common view and 
a common sentiment. So that these meetings 
which the judge has alluded to, and the resolu- 
tions he has read from, were local, and did not 
spread over the whole State. We at last met 
together in 1856, from all parts of the State, 
and we agreed upon a common platform. You 
who held more extreme notions, either yielded 
those notions, or if not wholly yielding them, 
agreed to yield them practically, for the sake of 
embodying the opposition to the measures which 
the opposite party were pushing forward at that 
time. We met you then, and if there was any- 
thing yielded, it was for practical purposes. 
We agreed then upon a platform for the party 
throughout the entire State of Illinois, and now 
we are all bound, as a party, to that platform. 
And I say here to you, if any one expects of 
me, in the case of my election, that I will do 
anything not signified by our Republican plat- 



33 8 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

form and my answers here to-day, I tell you 
very frankly that person will be deceived. I 
do not ask for the vote of any one who supposes 
that I have secret purposes or pledges that I 
dare not speak out. Cannot the judge be satis- 
fied? If he fears, in the unfortunate case of 
my election, that my going to Washington will 
enable me to advocate sentiments contrary to 
those which I expressed when you voted for and 
elected me, I assure him that his fears are wholly 
needless and groundless. Is the judge really 
afraid of any such thing? I'll tell you what he 
is afraid of. He is afraid we'll all pull to- 
gether. This is what alarms him more than 
anything else. For my part, I do hope that all 
of us, entertaining a common sentiment in oppo- 
sition to what appears to us as a design to na- 
tionalize and perpetuate slavery, will waive 
minor differences on questions which either be- 
long to the dead past or the distant future, and 
all pull together in this struggle. What are 
your sentiments? If it be true that on the 
ground which I occupy — ground which I oc- 
cupy as frankly and boldly as Judge Douglas 
does his — my views, though partly coinciding 
with yours, are not as perfectly in accordance 
with your feelings as his are, I do say to you in 
all candor, go for him and not for me. I hope 
to deal in all things fairly with Judge Douglas, 



1858] Rejoinder at Freeport 339 

and with the people of the State, in this con- 
test. And if I should never be elected to any 
office, I trust I may go down with no stain of 
falsehood upon my reputation, notwithstanding 
the hard opinions Judge Douglas chooses to en- 
tertain of me. 

The judge has again addressed himself to the 
Abolition tendencies of a speech of mine, made 
at Springfield in June last. I have so often 
tried to answer what he is always saying on that 
melancholy theme, that I almost turn with dis- 
gust from the discussion — from the repetition 
of an answer to it. I trust that nearly all of this 
intelligent audience have read that speech. If 
you have, I may venture to leave it to you to 
inspect it closely, and see whether it contains 
any of those "bugaboos" which frighten Judge 
Douglas. 

The judge complains that I did not fully an- 
swer his questions. If I have the sense to com- 
prehend and answer those questions, I have 
done so fairly. If it can be pointed out to me 
how I can more fully and fairly answer him, I 
will do it — but I aver I have not the sense to 
see how it is to be done. He says I do not de- 
clare I would in any event vote for the admis- 
sion of a slave State into the Union. If I have 
been fairly reported, he will see that I did give 
an explicit answer to his interrogatories. I did 



340 Abraham Lincoln E Au g- 2 7 

not merely say that I would dislike to be put to 
the test; but I said clearly, if I were put to the 
test, and a Territory from which slavery had 
been excluded should present herself with a 
State constitution sanctioning slavery, — a most 
extraordinary thing and wholly unlikely to hap- 
pen, — I did not see how I could avoid voting 
for her admission. But he refuses to under- 
stand that I said so, and he wants this audience 
to understand that I did not say so. Yet it will 
be so reported in the printed speech that he 
cannot help seeing it. 

He says if I should vote for the admission of 
a slave State I would be voting for a dissolution 
of the Union, because I hold that the Union can 
not permanently exist half slave and half free. 
I repeat that I do not believe this government 
can endure permanently half slave and half free, 
yet I do not admit, nor does it at all follow, that 
the admission of a single slave State will perma- 
nently fix the character and establish this as a 
universal slave nation. The judge is very hap- 
py indeed at working up these quibbles. Be- 
fore leaving the subject of answering questions, 
I aver as my confident belief, when you come 
to see our speeches in print, that you will find 
every question which he has asked me more 
fairly and boldly and fully answered than he 
has answered those which I put to him. Is not 



1858] Rejoinder at Freeport 341 

that so? The two speeches may be placed side 
by side; and I will venture to leave it to impar- 
tial judges whether his questions have not been 
more directly and circumstantially answered 
than mine. 

Judge Douglas says he made a charge upon 
the editor of the Washington "Union," alone, 
of entertaining a purpose to rob the States of 
their power to exclude slavery from their limits. 
I undertake to say, and I make the direct issue, 
that he did not make his charge against the edi- 
tor of the "Union" alone. I will undertake to 
prove by the record here that he made that 
charge against more and higher dignitaries than 
the editor of the Washington "Union." I am 
quite aware that he was shirking and dodging 
around the form in which he put it, but I can 
make it manifest that he leveled his "fatal blow" 
against more persons than this Washington edi- 
tor. Will he dodge it now by alleging that I 
am trying to defend Mr. Buchanan against the 
charge? Not at all. Am I not making the 
same charge myself? I am trying to show that 
you, Judge Douglas, are a witness on my side. 
I am not defending Buchanan, and I will tell 
Judge Douglas that in my opinion when he 
made that charge he had an eye farther north 
than he has to-day. He was then fighting 
against people who called him a Black Repub- 



34 2 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

lican and an Abolitionist. It is mixed all 
through his speech, and it is tolerably manifest 
that his eye was a great deal farther north than 
it is to-day. The judge says that though he 
made this charge, Toombs got up and declared 
there was not a man in the United States, ex- 
cept the editor of the "Union," who was in favor 
of the doctrines put forth in that article. And 
thereupon I understand that the judge withdrew 
the charge. Although he had taken extracts 
from the newspaper, and then from the Lecomp- 
ton constitution, to show the existence of a con- 
spiracy to bring about a "fatal blow," by which 
the States were to be deprived of the right of 
excluding slavery, it all went to pot as soon as 
Toombs got up and told him it was not true. 
It reminds me of the story that John Phoenix, 
the California railroad surveyor, tells. He 
says they started out from the Plaza to the Mis- 
sion of Dolores. They had two ways of deter- 
mining distances. One was by a chain and pins 
taken over the ground ; the other was by a "go- 
it-ometer," — an invention of his own, — a three- 
legged instrument, with which he computed a 
series of triangles between the points. At night 
he turned to the chain-man to ascertain what 
distance they had come, and found that by some 
mistake he had merely dragged the chain over 
the ground without keeping any record. By 



1858] Rejoinder at Freeport 343 

the "go-it-ometer" he found he had made ten 
miles. Being skeptical about this, he asked a 
drayman who was passing how far it was to 
Plaza. The drayman replied that it was just 
half a mile, and the surveyor put it down in his 
book — just as Judge Douglas says, after he had 
made his calculations and computations, he took 
Toombs's statement. I have no doubt that after 
Judge Douglas had made his charge, he was as 
easily satisfied about its truth as the surveyor 
was of the drayman's statement of the distance 
to the Plaza. Yet it is a fact that the man who 
put forth all that matter which Douglas deemed 
a "fatal blow" at State sovereignty, was elected 
by the Democrats as public printer. 

Now, gentlemen, you may take Judge Doug- 
las's speech of March 22, 1858, beginning about 
the middle of page 21, and reading to the bot- 
tom of page 24, and you will find the evidence 
on which I say that he did not make his charge 
against the editor of the "Union" alone. I can 
not stop to read it, but I will give it to the re- 
porters. Judge Douglas said: 

Mr. President, you here find several distinct propo- 
sitions advanced boldly by the Washington " Union " 
editorially, and apparently authoritatively, and every 
man who questions any of them is denounced as an 
Abolitionist, a Free-soiler, a fanatic. The proposi- 
tions are: first, that the primary object of all govern- 



344 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

ment at its original institution is the protection of 
persons and property; second, that the Constitution 
of the United States declares that the citizens of each 
State shall be entitled to all the privileges and im- 
munities of citizens in the several States; and that, 
therefore, thirdly, all State laws, whether organic or 
otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State 
from settling in another with their slave property, and 
especially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations 
of the original intention of the government and Con- 
stitution of the United States; and fourth, that the 
emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States 
was a gross outrage on the rights of property, inas- 
much as it was involuntarily done on the part of the 
owner. 

Remember that this article was published in the 
11 Union " on the 17th of November, and on the 18th 
appeared the first article giving the adhesion of the 
" Union " to the Lecompton constitution. It was in 
these words: 

" Kansas and her Constitution. — The vexed 
question is settled. The problem is solved. The dead 
point of danger is passed. All serious trouble to 
Kansas affairs is over and gone." 

And a column, nearly, of the same sort. Then, 
when you come to look into the Lecompton con- 
stitution, you find the same doctrine incorporated in 
it which was put forth editorially in the " Union." 
What is it? 

"Article 7, Section 1. The right of property 
is before and higher than any constitutional sanction ; 






1858] Rejoinder at Freeport 345 

and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and 
its increase is the same and as invariable as the right 
of the owner of any property whatever." 

Then in the schedule is a provision that the con- 
stitution may be amended after 1864 °y a two-thirds 
vote. 

" But no alteration shall be made to affect the 
right of property in the ownership of slaves." 

It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton 
constitution that they are identical in spirit with this 
authoritative article in the Washington " Union " of 
the day previous to its indorsement of this constitu- 
tion. 

When I saw that article in the " Union " of the 
17th of November, followed by the glorification of 
the Lecompton constitution on the 18th of November, 
and this clause in the constitution asserting the doc- 
trine that a State has no right to prohibit slavery with- 
in its limits, I saw that there was a fatal blow being 
struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union. 

Here he says, "Mr. President, you here find 
several distinct propositions advanced boldly, 
and apparently authoritatively." By whose 
authority, Judge Douglas? Again, he says in 
another place, "It will be seen by these clauses 
in the Lecompton constitution that they are 
identical in spirit with this authoritative arti- 
cle." By whose authority? Who do you mean 
to say authorized the publication of these arti- 
cles? He knows that the Washington "Union" 



346 Abraham Lincoln [Aug. 27 

is considered the organ of the administration. 
I demand of Judge Douglas by whose authority 
he meant to say those articles were published, 
if not by the authority of the President of the 
United States and his cabinet? I defy him to 
show whom he referred to, if not to these high 
functionaries in the Federal Government. 
More than this, he says the articles in that pa- 
per and the provisions of the Lecompton con- 
stitution are "identical," and being identical, he 
argues that the authors are cooperating and con- 
spiring together. He does not use the word 
"conspiring," but what other construction can 
you put upon it? He winds up with this: 

When I saw that article in the " Union " of the 
17th of November, followed by the glorification of 
the Lecompton constitution on the 18th of November, 
and this clause in the constitution asserting the doc- 
trine that a State has no right to prohibit slavery 
within its limits, I saw that there was a fatal blow 
being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this 
Union. 

I ask him if all this fuss was made over the 
editor of this newspaper. It would be a terri- 
bly "fatal blow" indeed which a single man 
could strike, when no President, no cabinet offi- 
cer, no member of Congress, was giving strength 
and efficiency to the movement. Out of respect 



1858] Rejoinder at Freeport 347 

to Judge Douglas's good sense I must believe he 
didn't manufacture his idea of the "fatal" char- 
acter of that blow out of such a miserable scape- 
grace as he represents that editor to be. But 
the judge's eye is farther south now. Then, it 
was very peculiarly and decidedly north. His 
hope rested on the idea of enlisting the great 
"Black Republican" party, and making it the 
tail of his new kite. He knows he was then ex- 
pecting from day to day to turn Republican and 
place himself at the head of our organization. 
He has found that these despised "Black Repub- 
licans" estimate him by a standard which he has 
taught them only too well. Hence he is crawl- 
ing back into his old camp, and you will find 
him eventually installed in full fellowship 
among those whom he was then battling, and 
with whom he now pretends to be at such fear- 
ful variance. [Loud applause, and cries of 
"Go on, go on."] I cannot, gentlemen, my 
time has expired. 

*Letter to Dr. William Fithian 

Bloomington, September 3, 1858. 
Dear Doctor: Yours of the 1st was received 
this morning, as also one from Mr. Harmon, 
and one from Hiram Beckwith on the same sub- 
ject. You will see by the Journal that I have 
appointed to speak at Danville on the 22nd of 



348 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 8 

Sept., — the day after Douglas speaks there. 
My recent experience shows that speaking at 
the same place the next day after D. is the very 
thing, — it is, in fact, a concluding speech on 
him. Please show this to Messrs. Harmon and 
Beckwith; and tell them they must excuse me 
from writing separate letters to them. 
Yours as ever, 

A. Lincoln. 
P. S. — Give full notice to all surrounding 
country. A. L. 



858] Speech at Clinton 349 



*Speech at Clinton, Illinois, September 8, 
1858 a 

From the Report in the Bloomington "Panta- 
graph" September 9, 1858. 

MR. LINCOLN responded briefly to 
Lawrence Weldon who had de- 
livered an address of welcome. He 
said that he was not vain enough to suppose 
that his personal popularity was sufficient to 
call out the large and enthusiastic crowd which 
surrounded him. He felt certain that the Great 
Cause in which he was engaged was dear to the 

J The question has been widely discussed and still remains 
unsettled, as to whether Lincoln originated the memorable 
epigram : " You can fool all the people some of the time and 
some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all 
the people all the time." 

In 1905 the Chicago "Tribune" and the Brooklyn "Eagle" 
combined efforts in an endeavor to solve the enigma for all 
time. After investigation several witnesses were found, notably 
Lewis Campbell of Dewitt County, 111.; J. J. Robinson of 
Lincoln, 111. ; and J. L. Hill of Fletcher, O., who agreed that 
Lincoln had expressed the sentiment, if not the exact words 
generally quoted. It is supposed that he used the phrase in 
the above speech while addressing the people of Clinton, though 
the " Pantagraph " fails to cite it. Naturally, newspaper reports 
in those days were never complete, and the editor on this 
particular occasion even apologizes for his lack of space to 
give the entire report of this speech. 



3 So Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 8 

hearts of all true lovers of freedom, and that 
the thousands of voters in his hearing, though 
they might be somewhat partial to him, had a 
greater reverence for a principle than for a 
man. He closed his brief remarks by thanking 
his hearers for their numbers and enthusiasm, 
and saying that he would address them at length 
on the regular speaking grounds. 

At two o'clock Mr. Lincoln was introduced 
to the audience by C. H. Moore, Esq. We re- 
gret that we have room for only a short synopsis 
of his eloquent and unanswerable speech. He 
said, in substance: 

The questions are sometimes asked, "What is 
all this fuss that is being made about negroes? — 
What does it amount to? — and where will it 
end?" These questions imply that those who 
ask them consider the slavery question a very 
insignificant matter — they think that it amounts 
to little or nothing, and that those who agitate it 
are extremely foolish. Now it must be admitted 
that if the great question that has caused so 
much trouble is insignificant, we are very foolish 
to have anything to do with it — if it is of no im- 
portance we had better throw it aside and busy 
ourselves about something else. But let us in- 
quire a little into this insignificant matter, as it 
is called by some, and see if it is not important 



1858] Speech at Clinton 351 

enough to demand the close attention of every 
well-wisher of the Union. In one of Douglas's 
recent speeches I find a reference to a speech 
which was made by me in Springfield some time 
ago. The Judge makes one quotation from that 
speech that requires some little notice from me 
at this time. I regret that I have not my Spring- 
field speech before me, but the Judge has quoted 
one particular part of it so often that I think I 
can recollect it. It runs, I think, as follows: 

We are now far into the fifth year since a policy 
was initiated with the avowed object and confident 
promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. 
Under the operation of that policy that agitation has 
not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. 
In my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have 
been reached and passed. 

" A house divided against itself cannot stand." I 
believe that this government cannot endure per- 
manently, half slave and half free. I do not expect 
the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the 
house to fall — but I do expect that it will cease to 
be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the 
other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest 
the further spread of it, and place it where the pub- 
lic mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course 
of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it 
forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the 
States, old as well as new — North as well as 
South. 



352 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 8 

Judge Douglas makes use of the above quota- 
tion, and finds a great deal of fault with it. He 
deals unfairly with me, and tries to make the 
people of this state believe that I advocated dan- 
gerous doctrines in my Springfield speech. Let 
us see if that portion of my Springfield speech 
of which Judge Douglas complains so bitterly, is 
as objectionable to others as it is to him. We 
are, certainly far into the fifth year since a 
policy was initiated with the avowed object and 
confident promise of putting an end to slavery 
agitation. On the fourth day of January, 1854, 
Judge Douglas introduced the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill. He initiated a new policy, and that policy, 
so he says, was to put an end to the agitation of 
the slavery question. Whether that was his ob- 
ject or not I will not stop to discuss, but at all 
events some kind of a policy was initiated; and 
what has been the result? Instead of the quiet 
times and good feeling which was promised us 
by the self-styled author of Popular Sovereignty, 
we have had nothing but ill-feeling and agita- 
tion. According to Judge Douglas, the passage 
of the Nebraska bill would tranquilize the whole 
country — there would be no more slavery agita- 
tion in or out of Congress, and the vexed ques- 
tion would be left entirely to the people of the 
territories. Such was the opinion of Judge 
Douglas, and such were the opinions of the lead- 



1858] Speech at Clinton 353 

ing men of the Democratic party. Even as late 
as the spring of 1856, Mr. Buchanan said, a short 
time subsequent to his nomination by the Cin- 
cinnati Convention, that the Territory of Kansas 
would be tranquil in less than six weeks. Per- 
haps he thought so, but Kansas has not been and 
is not tranquil, and it may be a long time before 
she will be so. 

We all know how fierce the agitation was in 
Congress last winter, and what a narrow escape 
Kansas had from being admitted into the Union 
with a Constitution that was detested by ninety- 
nine hundredths of her citizens. Did the angry 
debates which took place at Washington during 
the last session of Congress lead you to suppose 
that the slavery agitation was settled? 

An election was held in Kansas in the month 
of August, and the Constitution which was sub- 
mitted to the people was voted down by a large 
majority. So Kansas is still out of the Union, 
and there is a probability that she will remain 
out for some time. But Judge Douglas says the 
slavery question is settled. He says the bill 
which he introduced into the Senate of the 
United States on the fourth day of January, 
1854, settled the slavery question forever! — 
Perhaps he can tell us how that bill settled the 
slavery question, for if he is able to settle a ques- 
tion of such great magnitude he ought to be able 
to explain the manner in which he does it. He 



354 Abraham Lincoln [Sept. 8 

knows and you know that the question is not 
settled, and that his ill-timed experiment to 
settle it has made it worse than it ever was before. 

And now let me say a few words in regard to 
Douglas's great hobby of negro equality. He 
thinks — he says at least — that the Republican 
party is in favor of allowing whites and blacks 
to intermarry, and that a man can't be a good 
Republican unless he is willing to elevate black 
men to office and to associate with them on terms 
of perfect equality. He knows that we advocate 
no such doctrines as those, but he cares not how 
much he misrepresents us if he can gain a few 
votes by so doing. To show you what my opinion 
of negro equality was in times past, and to prove 
to you that I stand on that question where I 
always stood, I will read you a few extracts 
from a speech that was made by me in Peoria 
in 1854. It was made in reply to one of Judge 
Douglas's speeches. 

[Mr. Lincoln then read a number of extracts 
which had the ring of the true metal. We have 
rarely heard anything with which we have been 
more pleased. And the audience after hearing 
the extracts read and comparing their conserva- 
tive sentiments with those now advocated by Mr. 
Lincoln, testified their approval by loud ap- 
plause. How any reasonable man can hear one 
of Mr. Lincoln's speeches without being con- 



i8 5 8] Speech at Clinton 355 

verted to Republicanism is something that we 
can't account for.] 

Slavery, continued Mr. Lincoln, is not a mat- 
ter of little importance. It overshadows every 
other question in which we are interested. It 
has divided the Methodist and Presbyterian 
churches, and has sown discord in the American 
Tract Society. The churches have split and the 
society will follow their example before long. 
So it will be seen that slavery is agitated in the 
religious as well as in the political world. 

Judge Douglas is very much afraid that the 
triumph of the Republican party will lead to a 
general mixture of the white and black races. 
Perhaps I am wrong in saying that he is afraid, 
so I will correct myself by saying that he pre- 
tends to fear that the success of our party will re- 
sult in the amalgamation of blacks and whites. I 
think I can show plainly, from documents now 
before me, that Judge Douglas's fears are 
groundless. The census of 1850 tells us that in 
that year there were over four hundred thousand 
mulattoes in the United States. Now let us take 
what is called an abolition State — the Republi- 
can, slavery hating State of New Hampshire — 
and see how many mulattoes we can find in her 
borders. The number amounts to just one hun- 
dred and eighty-four. In the Old Dominion — 
in the Democratic and aristocratic State of Vir- 



356 Abraham Lincoln 

ginia — there were a few more mulattoes than the 
census-takers found in New Hampshire. How 
many do you suppose there were? Seventy-nine 
thousand seven hundred and seventy-five — 
twenty-three thousand more than there were in 
all the free States! In the slave States there 
were in 1850, three hundred and forty-eight 
thousand mulattoes — all of home production; 
and in the free States there were less than sixty 
thousand mulattoes, — and a large number of 
them were imported from the South. 

[Mr. Lincoln spoke for an hour and a half 
and would have spoken longer if it had not been 
for the rain.] 



<-?■. 



